Free Traffic Legal Advice

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

Vehicle Control Services Ltd
Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant

---

DEFENCE

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 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 explain the legal basis for the £170 claimed, nor does it provide any breakdown or justification for the £70 add-on;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the Defendant as “the driver and/or keeper”. This is impermissibly vague. The Claimant must plead a single, coherent cause of action. The land in question is not “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and therefore no keeper liability can arise;

(h) The PoC do not identify the driver. There is no legal presumption that the registered keeper was the driver, and no facts are pleaded to support such an inference;
 
(i) The signage allegedly relied upon is prohibitory (“no stopping”) and incapable of forming a contract. There is no offer, no consideration, and no acceptance. The claim is legally incoherent.

4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:

(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;

(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;

(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).

(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.

5. 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 for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:


Date: