Free Traffic Legal Advice

And so it goes on! I genuinely appreciate the advice and support this site offers.

I have been served a 'Notice of Transfer of Proceedings'

After the mediation call, which was amicable but they did not accept my offer of £0. DCB Legal have called me several times but I have not picked up or spoken to them.

I have now received a Notice of Transfer of Proceedings in the Civil National Business Centre, claimant Smart Parking Ltd stating the claim has been transferred to the County Court of Bristol for allocation.

I can submit documents via email to the county court. Should I put forward my defence at this junction?

I would greatly appreciate your advice.

KR.

Hi, I need your help again please.

I received an email today from Bristol County Court (sitting Judge Napier) with one paragraph stating this.

I need some guidance as to what I do next.

IT IS ORDERED THAT
1.   The defence is struck out on the grounds that it fails to disclose adequate particulars of the defence. Unless by 4.00pm on 16 June 2026 the defendant files with the court, and serves the claimant with, a further defence that discloses full and adequate particulars as to the defence of the claim, the claimant may apply to enter judgement by lodgement N025 (where specific sum is claimed) or by application for judgement. Dated 18 May 2026 (it arrived by email today)


I have previously submitted the following as defence (prepared by your good selves) and that is all I have put forward. There are specific details that make this claim unwarranted (the landowner made attempts to cancel the fines) and we had express permission to be there as invited guests and there is a system inplace to allow guests to register (the landowner did not relay the fact on the latter point).


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.

I could use some help with wording if possible to avoid legal mistakes.

Essentially, this is my defence:
1.   The original parking charge notice from Smart Parking Ltd was not compliant with PoFA 2012. It was issued 10/4/24 for an alleged contravention 24/3/24.
2.   We were invited guests of the Landlord, Exmouth Rugby Club. I was part of a large touring party invited to Exmouth RFC and we were not informed of their new parking arrangements (the tour was arranged prior to the installation of the parking scheme). Exmouth had the system installed in the February of 2024 and we arrived in the March.
3.   There was inadequate signage alerting drivers to the parking scheme. I have no pictorial evidence, however some 25 or more fines were issued that day, all of them to our touring party, all of whom did not see adequate signage. Had ther been adequate signage explaining that invited guests were to register at the clubhouse to park for free, we would have done so.
4.   Upon receiving the notification, I contacted Exmouth RFC and talking to my contemporary - Mr Lawrence Giles, Chairman Junior Section – he agreed to act on the issue and asked for the registration numbers of the vehicles that were fined. These were forwarded to Jan McCarthy, Secretary of Exmouth RFC, so they could be sent to Smart Parking Ltd, asking them to cease pursuing these fines. Smart Parking Ltd did not comply with the Landlords wishes.

Many thanks again for any help you can offer

I intend to submit this as my defence to the claim. Can you spot any glaring errors or is this phrased appropriately? As always, your advice has been greatly appreciated.

1.   The original parking charge notice from Smart Parking Ltd was not compliant with PoFA 2012.
(4)The notice must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.
And that by issuing the PCN on 10/4/24 for a period of parking on 24/3/24 the legislation has not been complied with, and the liability can not be transferred from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.
2.   There was inadequate signage alerting drivers to the recently introduced parking scheme. Had clear and prominent signage detailing the conditions, including that invited guests were to register at the clubhouse to park for free, we would have done so. Around 25 or more fines were issued that day to our touring party. I believe it is ‘reasonable’ to assume that such a large number of random individuals, parked at all different areas of the car park were not negligent and/or ignore signage.
3.   I was an invited guest of the Landlord, Exmouth Rugby Football Club and part of a large touring party of invited as guests to Exmouth RFC. In the months preceding our arrival, we corresponded with Exmouth RFC many times, however, we were not informed of their new parking arrangements. The tour was arranged prior to the installation of the parking scheme. The system was installed and went live on the 29 February of 2024 and we arrived on the 24 March of 2024.
4.   Upon receiving the notification, I contacted Exmouth RFC and talking to my contemporary - Mr Lawrence Giles, Chairman Junior Section – he agreed to act on the issue and asked for the registration numbers of the vehicles that were fined. These were forwarded to Jan McCarthy, Secretary of Exmouth RFC, so they could be sent to Smart Parking Ltd, asking them to cease pursuing these fines as we were legitimate guests who had not been informed properly of the new arrangements v . Smart Parking Ltd did not comply with the Landlords wishes.
5.   The defence maintains that the Particulars of Claim are too vague as per our previous defence filing.

One last one....promise!!

I have tried to make the points sound more legal and bulleted them but am concerned it is now too long. If possible, could you give this a quick read and recommend any changes. I am then filing to court. Many thanks again.

1. It is acknowledged that I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle at the material time.

2. The vehicle driver is not known to the Claimant and, as this is a contract dispute, I will not be identifying the driver under any circumstance as the law does not require it.

3. The Claimant appears to be relying on Protection of Freedoms Act (2012)(PoFA) in order to transfer liability from the unknown driver to myself.

4. In order to invoke 'keeper liability' using PoFA the Claimant must demonstrate that their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is compliant with Schedule 4 of PoFA - in this instance the NtK is not compliant as it was served well beyond the 14 day period required by the legislation.

5. As a result, with the driver unknown and no option of keeper liability, there is no legal route to liability in this matter.

6. Liability is therefore denied entirely.

Further defence points which the Court should be aware of;

7.  Inadequate Signage and Failure to Provide Adequate Notice of Parking Terms
•   The signage at the site was inadequate to bring the terms and conditions of the recently introduced parking scheme to the attention of motorists. The system began operation on the 29 February of 2024 and we arrived on the 24 March of 2024.

•   In particular, there was insufficient clear and prominent signage informing visitors that invited guests of the landowner (Exmouth Rugby Football Club) required to register their vehicle details in order to qualify for free parking.

•   Had such information been displayed prominently at the entrance and throughout the site, we would have complied with the registration requirement and no parking charge would have arisen.

•   On the date in question, approximately 30 or more Parking Charge Notices were issued to members of our touring party alone. These vehicles were parked in various locations throughout the car park and were operated by different individuals.

•   It is reasonable to infer from the unusually high number of charges issued that day that there was a systemic failure in the communication of the parking terms, rather than widespread negligence on the part of visitors.

•   The volume of charges issued to legitimate visitors is indicative of signage that was insufficiently clear, prominent, or comprehensible to adequately notify motorists of the contractual requirements imposed by the parking operator.

•   Accordingly, the operator failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the material terms of the parking contract were properly brought to the attention of drivers before any purported contract was formed.

8. Subsequent Actions and Evidence of Inadequate Communication of Parking Terms

•   Upon receipt of the Parking Charge Notices, I immediately contacted representatives of Exmouth RFC to establish the circumstances surrounding the alleged contraventions.

•   Mr Lawrence Giles, Chairman of the Junior Section and my counterpart at Exmouth RFC, acknowledged the issue and agreed to intervene on behalf of the affected visitors.

•   Mr Giles requested the registration numbers of the vehicles that had been issued with Parking Charge Notices, which were subsequently provided and forwarded to Jan McCarthy, Secretary of Exmouth RFC.

•   The vehicle registration details were supplied for onward transmission to Smart Parking Ltd with a request that the Parking Charge Notices be cancelled, on the basis that the motorists concerned were legitimate invited guests of Exmouth RFC.

•   The intervention of senior representatives of Exmouth RFC supports the contention that the affected motorists were authorised visitors and were entitled to park at the venue.

•   The need for Exmouth RFC to seek cancellation of multiple Parking Charge Notices is indicative of a failure by the parking operator to adequately communicate the requirements of the newly introduced parking scheme to legitimate visitors.

•   The fact that authorised guests were unaware of the requirement to register their vehicle details demonstrates that the relevant parking terms were not sufficiently brought to their attention before parking.

•   The operator's continued pursuit of Parking Charge Notices against legitimate visitors, despite notification from the landholder's representatives that those visitors were authorised users of the site, raises questions as to whether reasonable discretion was exercised and whether the enforcement process was conducted fairly and proportionately.

•   The circumstances are consistent with a failure of signage, communication, and implementation of the new parking arrangements, rather than any deliberate or negligent non-compliance by the motorists concerned.

9.    The defence maintains that the Particulars of Claim are too vague as per our previous defence filing.