• The PoC do not identify:
  
• any actual term displayed on the signs;
  
• what the signs required the driver to do or refrain from doing;
  
• what the driver allegedly did;
  
• how that conduct breached any identified term;
  
• when any contract was formed;
  
• the consideration provided by each party; or
  
• the contractual provision entitling the Claimant to £100, £170 or any other amount.
  

Quote:"Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done."

• saw or became bound by the signs;
  
• accepted any contractual offer; or
  
• breached any identified term.
  

• that the Defendant was observed driving;
  
• that the Defendant admitted driving;
  
• how the Claimant otherwise identified the Defendant as driver; or
  
• what conduct the Defendant personally performed.
  

Quote:"as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4"

• whether the Defendant was the registered keeper;
  
• whether a notice was affixed to the vehicle or the case depended upon a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK);
  
• whether and when the required notice was delivered;
  
• whether the relevant land was "relevant land";
  
• whether the creditor complied with the applicable conditions in paragraphs 5, 6, 8 or 9 of PoFA Schedule 4; or
  
• what sum was specified in the NtK.
  

Quote:"the total of the PC and damages".

• the amount of the original parking charge;
  
• the amount said to constitute "damages";
  
• the event allegedly causing those damages;
  
• whether the additional sum is contractual damages, debt-recovery costs, an administration charge or something else;
  
• the contractual term authorising it; or
  
• the legal basis upon which it is recoverable.
  

• the basis of the claim for interest;
  
• the percentage rate;
  
• the date from which interest is claimed;
  
• the date to which it has been calculated;
  
• the total interest calculated to that date; and
  
• the continuing daily rate.
  

Quote:1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered Keeper of the vehicle. No admission is made that the Defendant was the driver, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of that allegation

2. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) disclose no adequately pleaded cause of action. They comprise conclusions and generic labels, not the material facts required to establish liability

3. CPR 16.4 requires a concise statement of the facts relied upon. PD16 para 7.5 requires conduct relied upon to form an agreement by conduct to be specified. In the binding authority of Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Rajakanthan & Ors [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC), Jefford J held at para 42 that PoC must identify whether an agreement is oral, written, by conduct or some combination

4. The PoC do not identify the contractual term allegedly offered, accepted or breached. Nor do they plead what the signs required, what conduct constituted acceptance, what the driver did, or how that conduct breached any identified term. The formula "Vehicle Remained on Private Property In Breach Of The Displayed T&Cs" merely asserts the conclusion that a breach occurred. It does not identify either the term or the breach

5. The persuasive appeal decision in Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (E7GM9W44, 15 August 2023) is directly applicable. HHJ Murch held that PoC which did not set out the conduct amounting to the alleged breach failed to comply with CPR 16.4 and PD16 para 7.5. The default judgment was set aside and the claim was struck out

6. Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (K0DP5J30, 10 May 2024) is further persuasive appellate authority. HHJ Evans upheld the finding that similarly generic parking PoC failed CPR 16.4. The alleged contractual term and nature of its breach are basic facts. Without them, a defendant cannot know whether to plead, for example, payment, authority or compliance

7. The statement that the Defendant is pursued as driver is a bare allegation. The PoC plead no fact capable of establishing that the Defendant drove, saw any sign, accepted an offer, or performed the unidentified conduct said to constitute breach

8. The alternative reliance upon Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) is another legal conclusion. The PoC do not plead the facts establishing any right to Keeper liability, including the applicable notice procedure, delivery of the required notice within the statutory period, compliance with the mandatory conditions, or that the site was relevant land. Keeper liability does not arise merely by citing PoFA

9. Further, PoFA para 4(5) limits the sum recoverable from a Keeper to the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper. The PoC do not state that amount or explain how £170 could be recovered from the Defendant as Keeper

10. The claim for £170 as "the total of the PC and damages" is not particularised. The PoC do not state the original parking charge, identify the alleged damages, plead any loss, or specify a contractual or other legal basis for any additional sum. Neither liability nor quantum has therefore been properly pleaded

11. The Claimant chose to include what PD7C para 5.2(1) calls "detailed particulars of claim" within the online claim form. It gave no notice under PD7C para 5.2(2) that separate PoC would follow. The MCOL character limit does not disapply CPR 16.4 or PD16 para 7.5 and cannot justify omitting the cause of action

12. In the absence of a pleaded cause of action, the Defendant cannot provide a defence to facts, terms and conduct which the Claimant has not stated. The Defendant is not required to guess or construct the Claimant's case. Pursuant to CPR 16.5(1)(b), the Defendant is unable to admit or deny the unspecified allegations and requires the Claimant to prove them

13. Requiring the Defendant to guess at an unpleaded case would also defeat the overriding objective in CPR 1.1, particularly the requirements that parties be placed on an equal footing, expense be saved, and cases be dealt with proportionately. It would also prevent the Court from identifying the real issues at an early stage as required by active case management under CPR 1.4. Generic bulk pleading achieves precisely the opposite.

14. The Court is invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a), because the PoC disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing it, and under CPR 3.4(2)(b), because issuing generic bulk PoC which conceal the case to be answered is an abuse of the Court's process.

15. Alternatively, if the Claimant is permitted to amend, the Defendant requests an order requiring fully particularised PoC, permission to file an amended Defence thereafter, and that the Claimant bear the costs caused by its defective pleading.

16. Save as expressly admitted, every allegation is denied. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the existence and terms of the alleged contract, breach, driver or Keeper liability, standing, quantum and entitlement to the relief claimed.