Quote:Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Letter of Claim
Reference: [insert reference]

I am the registered keeper. I dispute the alleged debt in full. There is no admission as to the identity of the driver.

Your client’s own evidence appears to show only an approximately 44-second observation. That is wholly insufficient to establish that any driver had a fair opportunity to locate, read, understand and accept any alleged contractual terms before leaving. On that basis, no contract could have been formed, no contractual liability arose, and no sum is owed.

Further, your client’s Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the keeper. In particular, it failed to specify the land with sufficient clarity, failed to specify any period of parking, and failed properly to identify the creditor.

The location given was a broad industrial estate reference spanning multiple roads and an incorrect postcode, rather than a properly specified location. The notice also relied only on a single time rather than any actual period of parking. In addition, the wording did not clearly identify the creditor as required.

Further, the signage relied upon is prohibitive in nature, stating in substance that parking, waiting, loading and unloading are not permitted. Such wording is not an offer capable of contractual acceptance. If your client’s case is instead put on the basis of trespass, then your client is required to prove full landowner authority to pursue such a cause of action in its own name.

This letter also constitutes a formal request for documents and information. I require the following:

1. A copy of the original Parking Charge Notice / Notice to Keeper and all correspondence relied upon.
   
2. All photographs relied upon, in original sequence and with timestamps.
   
3. Full observation notes or warden logs.
   
4. A precise site plan identifying the exact alleged location, together with an explanation of the postcode discrepancy.
   
5. Copies of all signage relied upon, together with a plan showing where each sign was located at the material time.
   
6. A full unredacted copy of the contract or chain of authority showing that your client had authority at the material time to operate on the relevant land and to issue and pursue charges in its own name.
   
7. Confirmation of the legal basis of the proposed claim, namely whether it is alleged to sound in contract, trespass, or otherwise.
   
8. A detailed breakdown of the sum claimed, including the legal basis for each element over and above the principal parking charge.
   
9. If your client intends to rely on keeper liability, a full explanation as to how it is said that the Notice to Keeper complied with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
   

Until that information is provided, the matter is not sufficiently particularised for any meaningful substantive response.

If your client issues proceedings without first providing the documents and clarification requested, that conduct will be drawn to the court’s attention on the question of pre-action compliance, case management, and costs.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]

Quote: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 properly pleaded cause of action.

2. The Defendant is aware that the claim appears to concern a Parking Charge Notice said to have been issued by the Claimant in respect of a vehicle of which the Defendant is the registered keeper. Prior to proceedings, the Defendant responded to the Letter of Claim, disputed the alleged debt, sought clarification of the basis of the proposed claim, and requested the key documents and information said to be relied upon.

3. However, mere awareness that the claim concerns a parking charge does not cure defective pleading. The Defendant is not required to infer, reconstruct or guess the Claimant’s cause of action from prior correspondence or other material. The claim before the Court must stand or fall on the Particulars of Claim.

4. The Particulars of Claim are sparse, generic and defective. They fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and PD 16 paragraph 7 because they do not set out the material facts relied upon with sufficient particularity to disclose a properly pleaded cause of action.

5. The Defendant relies upon Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Rajakanthan & Ors [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC) as binding authority that a claimant must plead the material facts necessary for a complete cause of action and that it is not for the defendant to tease out the claimant’s case.

6. The Defendant further relies upon the persuasive appellate County Court decisions in Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan, HHJ Murch, 15 August 2023, and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande, HHJ Evans, 10 May 2024, both of which concerned parking claims struck out for failure properly to plead the contractual case, including the conduct said to amount to breach and the contractual term relied upon.

7. The present claim suffers from the same essential defects.

8. In particular, whilst the Claimant alleges that signage constituted an offer of a unilateral contract accepted by the act of parking, the Particulars do not identify the actual contractual term allegedly breached.

9. Nor do the Particulars identify the conduct said to constitute that alleged breach. The pleading merely asserts, in generic terms, that the vehicle was parked in breach of terms and conditions, without stating the conduct relied upon.

10. The pleaded location, namely “UXBRIDGE IND EST WALLINGFORD RD SALISBURY RD ARUNDEL RD UXBRIDGE UB8 2RZ”, is also vague and inadequate, being a broad multi-road description rather than a properly identified specific site.

11. Further, the pleading that the Defendant is liable as “driver and/or registered keeper” is incoherent. The Claimant has not properly pleaded whether liability is said to arise as driver, as keeper pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, or both in the alternative with a properly particularised basis for each.

12. The additional £70 is also not properly pleaded. The Claimant merely refers to “contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions” without identifying the contractual term relied upon or the legal basis upon which such sum is said to be recoverable.

13. The claim for statutory interest is likewise inadequately pleaded, the Particulars failing clearly to state the relevant date from which interest is said to run or the proper basis of calculation.

14. The Defendant is therefore unable properly to plead to the merits of the claim because the Particulars do not state:
    (a) the contractual term allegedly relied upon;
    (b) the conduct said to amount to breach;
    (c) the precise location of the alleged event;
    (d) the basis upon which the Defendant is said to be liable as driver, keeper, or both;
    (e) the legal basis of the additional £70; and
    (f) the basis of the interest claimed.

15. The Defendant cannot fairly or properly answer a claim pleaded in that form without speculation as to the contractual case actually advanced. Any attempt to plead to the merits in detail would risk doing the Claimant’s job for it.

16. Accordingly, the Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, denies that the Particulars disclose any properly pleaded cause of action, and denies that the Claimant has pleaded any basis upon which the Court can determine contractual liability against the Defendant.

17. The Claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) by serving proper separate particulars but chose not to do so.

18. In the premises, the claim should be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a).

19. Alternatively, if the Court is not minded to strike out the claim, the Defendant reserves the right to seek permission to amend and/or supplement this Defence once the Claimant has properly particularised its case.

20. Pending proper particularisation, the Defendant denies the claim in its entirety.