Quote:1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant and denies that any debt is owed.

2. The Defendant is admitted to have been the registered keeper of the vehicle. It is not admitted that the Defendant was the driver on either alleged date. The Defendant has no recollection of the events, which are said to have occurred more than three years ago.

3. The Defendant makes no admission as to the identity of the driver on either alleged date. The Claimant is put to strict proof. There is no legal presumption that the registered keeper of a vehicle was the driver, and there is no obligation upon a registered keeper to identify the driver. No adverse inference should be drawn from the Defendant’s inability to recall events from more than three years ago, particularly where the Claimant has produced no evidence capable of establishing driver identity.

4. No Notices to Keeper were received by the Defendant at the material time because the Defendant had moved and the DVLA keeper record had not yet been updated. The Defendant only obtained copies of the alleged notices after this claim was issued and after making a Subject Access Request.

5. As confirmed by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 at paragraph 108, keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 can arise only where the statutory conditions are strictly complied with. However, the copies of the Notices to Keeper, obtained only after the Defendant’s Subject Access Request, show that both notices were “given” well outside the mandatory 14-day period and contain no wording capable of satisfying the mandatory keeper-liability warning required by Schedule 4. The Claimant is therefore legally incapable of transferring liability to the Defendant as registered keeper, notwithstanding the contrary assertion in the Particulars of Claim.

6. In the absence of proof that the Defendant was the driver, the Claimant can only pursue the Defendant as registered keeper if every mandatory requirement of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has been complied with. For the reasons set out above, those requirements were not met.

6. The Defendant is aware that the location is a rooftop parking area above Evans Cycles where some bays appear to be for customers and others privately allocated. The signage and bay arrangements appear capable of causing an innocent mistake by any visitor. The Defendant therefore denies that any clear contractual terms were properly brought to the attention of the driver and puts the Claimant to strict proof.

7. The Particulars of Claim do not comply with CPR 16.4 and PD 16. They do not plead a clear or complete cause of action and are so sparse that the Defendant is unable to plead properly in response.

8. In particular, the Particulars of Claim fail to state, with sufficient clarity and particularity:

(a) the full contractual basis of the claim;

(b) whether the alleged agreement was made by conduct, by signage, or otherwise;

(c) the exact contractual term or terms relied upon;

(d) the conduct said to have amounted to acceptance of any terms;

(e) how the alleged parking was “unauthorised”;

(f) the precise breach alleged on each date;

(g) the location, time, and period of parking said to give rise to each charge; and

(h) how the sum of £340 is calculated, including the basis of any added damages, fees, costs or interest.

9. Where a claim is based upon an agreement, PD 16 paragraph 7 requires proper particulars of that agreement. In Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Rajakanthan & Ors [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC), Mrs Justice Jefford DBE held at paragraph 42 that it is implicit that the Particulars of Claim must set out the claimant’s case as to whether the agreement is oral, in writing, made by conduct, or some combination.

10. The Claimant has failed to do so. The Defendant is therefore left to guess the case being advanced. That is contrary to CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraph 7.

11. The Claimant could have served detailed separate Particulars of Claim but chose not to do so.

12. Given the modest sum claimed, the routine nature of these bulk-issued proceedings, and the Claimant’s choice to issue generic and deficient Particulars of Claim, the Defendant submits that requiring further pleadings or further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.

13. The Court is therefore invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative pursuant to CPR 3.4 and CPR 3.3.

14. In the alternative only, if the Court is not minded to strike out the claim, the Defendant asks that the Claimant be ordered to file and serve fully particularised Particulars of Claim, and that the Defendant then have permission to file and serve an amended defence.