Free Traffic Legal Advice

So, consider a few things... The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is simply an invoice for a breach of terms and conditions of a "contract" between the driver and UKCPS. The "contract" is the terms and condition signs at the location. The driver doesn't have to actually read the signs but as long as there enough signs and they adequately bring to the attention of the driver the charge for breaching those terms, the "contract" is entered into by 'conduct'. The 'conduct' being the action of actually parking there.

Now, here is the problem... If the driver is not a resident of a property at the location, the capability of the sign to form a contractual relationship depends on whether the sign makes a clear and specific offer to non-residents or prohibits their parking.

In the image you provided, the sign specifically states:

Quote

"Parking is only permitted for residents of Mak Court. No parking is permitted for any other vehicles for any length of time."

This wording is important because it suggests the following:

1. Nature of the Offer

The sign does not extend an offer to non-residents. Instead, it expressly prohibits parking by non-residents. This means that a non-resident would not be able to accept the offer because no offer is made to them in the first place.

In contract law, if there is no offer, there can be no acceptance, and therefore no contract.

2. Prohibitive Notice

The sign is a prohibitive notice, rather than an invitation to enter into a contract. Prohibitive notices are used to indicate that no permission is granted for certain actions (in this case, parking by non-residents).

In general, courts have found that prohibitive notices are not capable of forming a contract. For a contract to be formed, there must be an offer for the individual to accept. If parking is explicitly prohibited for certain individuals, they cannot be deemed to have accepted an offer that doesn't exist.

If non-residents park in violation of the prohibition, this should be a trespass issue, not a contractual issue, which would require a separate legal basis for claiming damages (typically limited to actual losses).

3. Case Law Support

In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court made it clear that a sign offering parking on certain terms could form a contract. However, that was in the context of a sign offering parking on specific conditions (e.g., time limits). In contrast, a prohibitive notice does not offer parking to non-residents; therefore, there can be no contractual relationship formed with a non-resident.

Conclusion:

• For a resident: The sign could form a contractual relationship because it offers parking to residents under certain conditions (e.g., they must park in accordance with the rules).

• For a non-resident: The sign cannot form a contract because it explicitly prohibits parking by non-residents. Since no offer is made to non-residents, there can be no acceptance, and thus no contract.

In this scenario, as a non-resident parked and then received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), the argument is that the sign does not offer parking to them at all, and thus no contract could have been formed. Any charge would need to be pursued under trespass law rather than as a breach of contract.

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 CPR PD 16.7.3(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, particularly where the Particulars of
Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or
explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
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 CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.

AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the
court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with
the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share
of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of
claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals
to the judge for 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 5 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.