Short answer: yes, it’s appropriate to include the suggested draft order within the defence on MCOL. It won’t be treated as an application; it’s an invitation for the judge to act of their own initiative. It does no harm and can help a judge who is minded to strike out.
The PoC in any Gladstones issued claim never comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) as they never include a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies. Think of CPR 16.4(1)(a) as the rule that says: if you sue someone, you must tell them, in short but clear terms, exactly what facts you rely on. Not conclusions, not labels, but the basic story: what contract, what term, what was done wrong, where and when, and how the sum is made up.
The PoC in a Gladstones issued claim don’t do that. Here’s why:
1. “Breach of parking terms” is just a conclusion. The PoC don’t say what the driver supposedly did: failed to pay, overstayed, left site, wrong bay, no permit, etc. Without the alleged act, there are no material facts to answer.
2. Contract cases must set out the contract relied upon. PD 16 paras 7.3–7.5 require the claimant to attach or set out the relevant terms if it’s written, or to state the terms if it’s oral or by conduct. The PoC don’t identify any contractual term or wording, so the defendant can’t see what term was allegedly broken.
3. The PoC don’t state who is being sued and on what basis: the driver, or the registered keeper under PoFA. If the keeper is pursued, the claimant should plead that PoFA Schedule 4 conditions are met. As drafted, the defendant cannot tell which case they have to meet.
4. Time and duration matter in parking claims. Saying only “23/07/2024” isn’t enough. There’s no start time, end time, or period of parking, so the defendant can’t check signage hours, machine logs, receipts, grace/consideration periods, or whether the vehicle was merely stopped briefly.
5. The place is vague. “Stack Shack” is a trading name, not a precise location or car park area. Many sites have multiple bays/zones with different signs. The PoC don’t say exactly where on the land the alleged breach occurred or what sign applied there.
6. The £60 “contractual costs” are just a label. The PoC don’t plead any contractual term that entitles that add-on, nor facts showing the defendant agreed to pay it. In contract, you must point to the term that creates liability for the extra sum.
7. Interest is not properly particularised. PD 16 para 4.2 says a claimant seeking s.69 interest should state the rate, the start date, the period to which it applies, the daily rate, and the amount claimed. The PoC give only a lump figure and 8% with no period or daily rate.
8. Standing is not pleaded. Private parking firms need authority from the landowner to contract and to sue. The PoC say nothing about the claimant’s authority, which is part of the factual basis of the claim.
9. The £50 “legal representative’s costs” are claimed but no basis is pleaded. On the small claims track, recoverable costs are tightly limited; if they say it’s part of the principal debt, they must plead the contractual basis. If they say it’s costs, they must accept the small-claims limits. As pled, it’s opaque.
Overall, the PoC read like “you broke some rule, pay £257.50” without telling the defendant what rule, how it was broken, or why the figures are due. CPR 16.4(1)(a) requires a concise statement of the facts relied on. These particulars give conclusions and totals, not facts, so the defendant cannot plead a proper response. That is why they breach CPR 16.4(1)(a).
MCOL limits do not excuse inadequate ParticularsMCOL’s character limit is real, but the rules provide a simple workaround. If the online box was too small, the claimant should have selected “particulars to follow” and then served full Particulars of Claim within 14 days of service of the claim form (CPR 7.4(1)(b); PD 7C paras 5.2 and 6.1). That route exists so claimants can comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and PD 16.
Full Particulars served separately should set out the contract relied on and the exact term said to be broken, who is sued and on what basis (driver or keeper under PoFA and how its conditions are met), the where/when/how long of the alleged parking event, and a clear breakdown of the sums claimed with the contractual or statutory basis for any add-ons and for interest (PD 16 paras 7.3–7.5; PD 16 para 4.2 on interest).
If MCOL still felt unsuitable, the claimant could have issued on paper using form N1. Nothing in the rules forced them to rely on an under-particularised MCOL narrative.
Prior letters, PCNs or emails are irrelevant to pleading compliance. The Particulars must stand on their own and enable a defendant, assumed to know nothing about the matter on receipt, to understand the case and plead a defence. The court cannot treat earlier correspondence as if it were part of the PoC.
In short, the claimant’s failure is one of choice, not constraint. The rules gave straightforward options to plead properly. MCOL is not an excuse.
