This is what I have so far
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety and asserts that no contract was formed and no debt is owed.
2. The claim was subject to an order dated 13 March 2026, requiring the Claimant to serve compliant particulars of claim by 4pm on 28 April 2026. The Claimant served them late and did not apply for relief. The claim therefore ought to be struck out.
3. Without prejudice to the above, the Defendant responds as follows:
4. Paragraph 1 of the Particulars of Claim (PoC) is noted. The Defendant denies that the Claimant has a right to pursue a claim under Schedule 4(1)(a) of the Protections from Freedom Act 2012 ('POFA').
5. Paragraph 2 is noted.
6. As to paragraph 3, the Defendant notes that the agreement provided at Exhibit 1 is dated 23 April 2025, which post dates the alleged contravention. The Claimant has provided no evidence that it was authorised to manage parking on the site on the date of the alleged contravention, nor the scope of the agreement by reference to a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view). The Claimant is put to proof.
7. Paragraph 4 is denied. It is denied that the vehicle was issued with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by a warden and the Claimant is put to proof. The Defendant asserts that the photographs show no PCN attached to the vehicle. In the absence of the same, it is denied that the PCN was correctly served as per the requirements of Sch4 of POFA. Further, a PCN cannot be issued to a vehicle, but only to an individual driver based on contract. The Claimant has failed to provide proof that the driver was sufficiently made aware of the PCN.
8. As to paragraph 5:
i. 5(a) is noted. The Claimant is put to proof that it was authorised by the Freeholder to manage the land at all material times. The Defendant adopts and repeats paragraph 6 of the amended defence.
ii. 5(b) It is not admitted that “prominent signs” were displayed. The Claimant provides no evidence of where any sign was located in relation to the vehicle’s location or the size of the sign. The single evidential photo of a sign gives no context, is unlit and was taken at night with flash.
iii. 5(c) is noted. The Defendant argues that, based on the photographs, this is not a properly or fairly signed no stopping zone.
iv. As to paragraph 5(d), it is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices.
9. Paragraph 6 is not admitted. The Defendant adopts and repeats paragraph 8(iv) of the Defence.
10. Paragraph 7 is noted.
11. Paragraph 8 is denied. It is denied that a Notice to Driver (NtD) was affixed to the vehicle on 29 March 2024, as the alleged parking event occurred over 8 months later, on 30 November 2024. The Defendant draws attention to the Claimant's representative signing a statement of truth stating his belief that the facts in the Particulars of Claim are true, despite this not being the case. It is further denied that a compliant NtD was served on the material date. No NtD was present when the driver returned to the vehicle, and none of the exhibits provided by the Claimant show any such notice affixed to the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof that a compliant NtD was properly served.
12. As to paragraph 9, it is denied that the Claimant had the right to make a request for registered keeper details pursuant to paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 4 of PoFA, in circumstances where a NtD was not correctly issued.
13. Save that the Defendant admits that a Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued, paragraph 10 is denied. It is denied that the NtK was compliant with paragraph 8 of schedule 4. The Defendant asserts:
i) The NtK does not specify a period of parking, only a timestamp. This fails PoFA 8(2)(a), as confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H].
ii) Further Paras 8(4) and 8(5) of PoFA stipulate that:
(4)The notice [to keeper] 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 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.
If, as alleged, the NtD was affixed to the vehicle on 29 March 2024, the NtK was not served within the 'relevant period' (i.e by 24 May 2024).
iii) Further, and in the alternative, if it is alleged that the NtD was affixed to the vehicle on 30 November 2024, then the earliest that a NtK could be given would have been 29 December 2024. The NtK, having been sent on 6 December 2024, was not served within the relevant period.
iv) The Claimant cannot rely on PoFA to pursue the Keeper. As the Notices were defective, there can be no Keeper liability. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof.
14. Paragraph 12 is not admitted.
15. Paragraph 13 is denied. The claim is for £255 but the initial charge was only £100. No explanation or calculation is given for the additional £155. There is no indication if this includes damages, debt recovery fees, interest or VAT. No breakdown has been provided. Pursuant to Sch4 POFA the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.
16. Paragraph 14 is noted.
17. The original Particulars of Claim were deemed not to comply with CPR 16.4. The amended Particulars of Claim are factually incorrect and were served late, no application for relief from sanctions having been made. In light of the same, the Court is invited to exercise its discretion in accordance with CPR 3.4 to strike out the claim.
