Every civil claim begins with the Particulars of Claim (PoC). They are not a formality. They define the case the claimant is bringing, the legal basis relied upon, and the factual allegations that must be answered. If the Particulars are defective, vague or non-compliant with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPRs), the entire claim rests on unstable ground.
In private parking litigation, this point is routinely overlooked. Many claims are issued using standardised, formulaic wording that asserts the existence of a “contract” and a “breach” without properly identifying what agreement is relied upon, how it was formed, or what specific terms were allegedly broken. Defendants are then expected to respond to a case that has not been properly articulated.
The High Court decision in Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Others [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC) is a reminder that this is not acceptable pleading. It reinforces a fundamental procedural principle: where a claim is based on an agreement, the claimant must clearly state whether that agreement is written, oral, or made by conduct, and must plead the required particulars for that category. Failure to do so is not a minor drafting defect; it is a failure to comply with the rules governing how contractual claims must be brought.
For anyone defending a private parking claim — or advising on one — understanding the importance of robust, rule-compliant Particulars of Claim is essential. The adequacy of the pleading is often the first, and sometimes the most powerful, line of defence.
The decision in Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Others [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC) is procedurally significant because it reinforces strict compliance with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 where a claim is based on an agreement. Although it arose in a construction context, the principles are directly applicable to private parking claims, which are almost invariably pleaded as contractual claims.
The core procedural framework is set out at paragraph 42:
This paragraph crystallises two mandatory requirements.
First, the Particulars must comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a): they must contain a concise statement of the material facts relied upon.
Second, where the claim is founded on an agreement, the pleading must comply with PD16 paragraph 7. That means identifying whether the agreement is written, oral, or made by conduct, and pleading the required particulars for that category.
The Practice Direction requires:
The High Court found non-compliance where the claimant had failed even to identify the nature of the alleged contract. The judge stated that there was no indication whether the agreements were oral or written or partly oral and partly in writing, and that none of the particulars required by the Practice Direction had been provided.
That reasoning is directly transferable to parking claims.
Application to private parking litigation
Most private parking firms plead in formulaic terms along the following lines:
However, these pleadings frequently fail to:
Under Liberty Homes, that is not a mere technical defect. The High Court confirms that it is implicit in the rules that the claimant must plead which category of agreement is relied upon. A parking firm cannot simply assert “a contract” in the abstract.
In a typical parking case:
If the alleged contract is written (the signage), PD16 paragraph 7.3 requires the written contract or documents constituting the agreement to be attached or served. A generic statement that “terms were displayed” without exhibiting them is vulnerable.
If the alleged contract is by conduct (parking and remaining on site), PD16 paragraph 7.5 requires the claimant to specify the conduct relied upon and state by whom, when and where the acts were done. Many Particulars merely state entry and exit times from ANPR images without identifying the precise conduct said to amount to acceptance and breach.
Liberty Homes makes clear that failing even to state whether the agreement is oral, written or by conduct is itself non-compliant. That observation is particularly powerful in parking claims issued using template Particulars that do not engage with PD16 paragraph 7 at all.
Procedural consequence
The judgment demonstrates that the court may strike out Particulars for non-compliance while permitting re-pleading. The focus was not whether the claim was inherently unarguable, but whether it had been properly pleaded in accordance with the CPR and Practice Direction.
In parking litigation, this authority can therefore be deployed to argue that:
Strategic significance
The strength of Liberty Homes lies in the fact that it is a High Court decision explicitly construing CPR 16.4 and PD16 paragraph 7. It is not parking-specific, but it is binding authority on the correct approach to pleading contractual claims.
Given that virtually all private parking claims are framed as claims for a contractual sum arising from signage, the requirement to identify whether the contract is written, oral, or by conduct — and to plead the required particulars for that category — is directly applicable.
In short, paragraph 42 provides a clear and authoritative statement that a claimant cannot simply allege “a contract” without stating what kind of agreement is relied upon and pleading it properly. For parking firms relying on sparse, template Particulars, that is a material vulnerability.
In private parking litigation, this point is routinely overlooked. Many claims are issued using standardised, formulaic wording that asserts the existence of a “contract” and a “breach” without properly identifying what agreement is relied upon, how it was formed, or what specific terms were allegedly broken. Defendants are then expected to respond to a case that has not been properly articulated.
The High Court decision in Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Others [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC) is a reminder that this is not acceptable pleading. It reinforces a fundamental procedural principle: where a claim is based on an agreement, the claimant must clearly state whether that agreement is written, oral, or made by conduct, and must plead the required particulars for that category. Failure to do so is not a minor drafting defect; it is a failure to comply with the rules governing how contractual claims must be brought.
For anyone defending a private parking claim — or advising on one — understanding the importance of robust, rule-compliant Particulars of Claim is essential. The adequacy of the pleading is often the first, and sometimes the most powerful, line of defence.
The decision in Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Others [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC) is procedurally significant because it reinforces strict compliance with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 where a claim is based on an agreement. Although it arose in a construction context, the principles are directly applicable to private parking claims, which are almost invariably pleaded as contractual claims.
The core procedural framework is set out at paragraph 42:
Quote:“The rules and Practice Direction together provide that the Particulars of Claim must set out a concise statement of the claimant’s case and, where it is based on an agreement, must provide the particulars or details specified in the Practice Direction. It is implicit that the Particulars of Claim must set out the claimant’s case as to whether the agreement is oral or in writing or made by conduct or some combination.”
This paragraph crystallises two mandatory requirements.
First, the Particulars must comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a): they must contain a concise statement of the material facts relied upon.
Second, where the claim is founded on an agreement, the pleading must comply with PD16 paragraph 7. That means identifying whether the agreement is written, oral, or made by conduct, and pleading the required particulars for that category.
The Practice Direction requires:
- If the claim is based on a written agreement, a copy of the contract or the documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the Particulars of Claim.
- If the claim is based on an oral agreement, the Particulars should set out the words used and state by whom, to whom, when and where they were spoken.
- If the claim is based on an agreement by conduct, the Particulars must specify the conduct relied upon and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done.
The High Court found non-compliance where the claimant had failed even to identify the nature of the alleged contract. The judge stated that there was no indication whether the agreements were oral or written or partly oral and partly in writing, and that none of the particulars required by the Practice Direction had been provided.
That reasoning is directly transferable to parking claims.
Application to private parking litigation
Most private parking firms plead in formulaic terms along the following lines:
- “The Defendant entered into a contract by parking.”
- “The terms were displayed on signage.”
- “The Defendant breached the terms.”
However, these pleadings frequently fail to:
- State whether the alleged agreement is said to be written (the signage), oral, or by conduct.
- Attach or serve the written contractual terms relied upon (that is, the full signage wording).
- Particularise the conduct said to constitute acceptance.
- Identify the specific term said to have been breached.
- Identify clearly who the contracting parties were, particularly where the claim is against a registered keeper.
Under Liberty Homes, that is not a mere technical defect. The High Court confirms that it is implicit in the rules that the claimant must plead which category of agreement is relied upon. A parking firm cannot simply assert “a contract” in the abstract.
In a typical parking case:
If the alleged contract is written (the signage), PD16 paragraph 7.3 requires the written contract or documents constituting the agreement to be attached or served. A generic statement that “terms were displayed” without exhibiting them is vulnerable.
If the alleged contract is by conduct (parking and remaining on site), PD16 paragraph 7.5 requires the claimant to specify the conduct relied upon and state by whom, when and where the acts were done. Many Particulars merely state entry and exit times from ANPR images without identifying the precise conduct said to amount to acceptance and breach.
Liberty Homes makes clear that failing even to state whether the agreement is oral, written or by conduct is itself non-compliant. That observation is particularly powerful in parking claims issued using template Particulars that do not engage with PD16 paragraph 7 at all.
Procedural consequence
The judgment demonstrates that the court may strike out Particulars for non-compliance while permitting re-pleading. The focus was not whether the claim was inherently unarguable, but whether it had been properly pleaded in accordance with the CPR and Practice Direction.
In parking litigation, this authority can therefore be deployed to argue that:
- The Particulars disclose no properly pleaded cause of action because they do not identify the nature of the alleged agreement.
- The claimant has failed to comply with PD16 paragraph 7.
- The court should strike out the Particulars or order Further and Better Particulars before the defendant is required to plead substantively.
Strategic significance
The strength of Liberty Homes lies in the fact that it is a High Court decision explicitly construing CPR 16.4 and PD16 paragraph 7. It is not parking-specific, but it is binding authority on the correct approach to pleading contractual claims.
Given that virtually all private parking claims are framed as claims for a contractual sum arising from signage, the requirement to identify whether the contract is written, oral, or by conduct — and to plead the required particulars for that category — is directly applicable.
In short, paragraph 42 provides a clear and authoritative statement that a claimant cannot simply allege “a contract” without stating what kind of agreement is relied upon and pleading it properly. For parking firms relying on sparse, template Particulars, that is a material vulnerability.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
