03-03-2026, 06:39 PM
Hi and thanks for the welcome.
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by UK Car Park Management Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Tuesday, 06 May 1924. The notice itself is dated an unspecified date, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Wheatstone House, 650-654 Chiswick High Road, Chiswick, W4 5BB.
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates PENDING: Enter the notice issue date to calculate deemed delivery and timing. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Not available.
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: Yes
- Letter of Claim: Yes
- County Court claim: Yes
- Letter of Claim responded to: No
- Letter of Claim source: Bulk litigation firm
- Letter of Claim firm: BW Legal
County Court claim deadlines: issue date Saturday, 18 July 1925, deemed service Thursday, 23 July 1925, AoS deadline 4pm Thursday, 06 August 1925, defence deadline without AoS 4pm Thursday, 06 August 1925, and defence deadline with AoS 4pm Thursday, 20 August 1925.
Additional notes provided:
The form didn't allow me to enter the year - but for the first question regarding the 3 PCN dates they are:
30/04/2024
04/05/2024
11/05/2024
The second question regarding when the CCJ Claim was issued is 18/07/2025.
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
Haven't recieved the Claimant's witness statement as yet.
Particulars of claim is here:https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1bTsCiAMpC16uGvrcU9lo5Syz3ifpqeku?usp=drive_link
My acknowledgement of service was submitted on@ 28/07/2025 to MCOL.
My defence was:
1. The Defendant denies the claim in full. No contract was
formed, no breach occurred, and no debt is owed. The claim is
legally and procedurally deficient.
2. The Defendant is a leaseholder with a pre-existing right to
park under Clause 4.15 of the lease. This clause governs parking
and does not authorise third-party enforcement or delegate
rights to the Claimant.
3. The lease takes precedence. No separate contract could
arise from signage where parking is already regulated by lease.
The Claimant’s assertion of a contractual licence is legally
flawed.
4. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) fail to comply with CPR 16.4
and PD 16.7.3(1). The Claimant has not quoted or exhibited the
alleged contractual terms, nor identified any specific breach.
5. The PoC do not specify whether the Defendant is pursued as
driver or keeper. This ambiguity renders the claim incoherent
and procedurally improper.
6. The alleged contraventions (“Permit Required”, “No Parking on
Access Roads”, etc.) are bare assertions. No evidence is
provided of signage, terms, or acceptance.
7. The claimed sum of £510 is unexplained. No breakdown,
calculation, or legal basis is given for the charges or “debt
recovery costs.”
8. The PoC are vague, unsupported, and legally incoherent. The
claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) as disclosing no
reasonable grounds.
9. The Defendant submits that the claim is so vague and
procedurally deficient that it fails to disclose any reasonable
grounds. The PoC breach CPR 16.4 and PD 16.7.3(1), and no
legally recognisable cause of action is pleaded. Given the
modest value and disproportionate use of court resources, the
Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim under CPR
3.4(2)(a) rather than permit amendment. The following Draft
Order is proposed:
Draft Order:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the Particulars of Claim,
though served separately, remain deficient and do not comply
with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and PD 16.7.3(1), because:
(a) They do not set out the exact wording of the clause(s) of
the terms and conditions relied upon; and
(b) They do not adequately set out the reason(s) why the
Claimant asserts that the Defendant was in breach of contract.
AND upon the claim being for a modest sum, such that the court
considers it disproportionate and contrary to the overriding
objective to allocate further resources by ordering amended
pleadings and further case management.
ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at
this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by UK Car Park Management Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Tuesday, 06 May 1924. The notice itself is dated an unspecified date, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Wheatstone House, 650-654 Chiswick High Road, Chiswick, W4 5BB.
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates PENDING: Enter the notice issue date to calculate deemed delivery and timing. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Not available.
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: Yes
- Letter of Claim: Yes
- County Court claim: Yes
- Letter of Claim responded to: No
- Letter of Claim source: Bulk litigation firm
- Letter of Claim firm: BW Legal
County Court claim deadlines: issue date Saturday, 18 July 1925, deemed service Thursday, 23 July 1925, AoS deadline 4pm Thursday, 06 August 1925, defence deadline without AoS 4pm Thursday, 06 August 1925, and defence deadline with AoS 4pm Thursday, 20 August 1925.
Additional notes provided:
The form didn't allow me to enter the year - but for the first question regarding the 3 PCN dates they are:
30/04/2024
04/05/2024
11/05/2024
The second question regarding when the CCJ Claim was issued is 18/07/2025.
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
Haven't recieved the Claimant's witness statement as yet.
Particulars of claim is here:https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1bTsCiAMpC16uGvrcU9lo5Syz3ifpqeku?usp=drive_link
My acknowledgement of service was submitted on@ 28/07/2025 to MCOL.
My defence was:
1. The Defendant denies the claim in full. No contract was
formed, no breach occurred, and no debt is owed. The claim is
legally and procedurally deficient.
2. The Defendant is a leaseholder with a pre-existing right to
park under Clause 4.15 of the lease. This clause governs parking
and does not authorise third-party enforcement or delegate
rights to the Claimant.
3. The lease takes precedence. No separate contract could
arise from signage where parking is already regulated by lease.
The Claimant’s assertion of a contractual licence is legally
flawed.
4. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) fail to comply with CPR 16.4
and PD 16.7.3(1). The Claimant has not quoted or exhibited the
alleged contractual terms, nor identified any specific breach.
5. The PoC do not specify whether the Defendant is pursued as
driver or keeper. This ambiguity renders the claim incoherent
and procedurally improper.
6. The alleged contraventions (“Permit Required”, “No Parking on
Access Roads”, etc.) are bare assertions. No evidence is
provided of signage, terms, or acceptance.
7. The claimed sum of £510 is unexplained. No breakdown,
calculation, or legal basis is given for the charges or “debt
recovery costs.”
8. The PoC are vague, unsupported, and legally incoherent. The
claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) as disclosing no
reasonable grounds.
9. The Defendant submits that the claim is so vague and
procedurally deficient that it fails to disclose any reasonable
grounds. The PoC breach CPR 16.4 and PD 16.7.3(1), and no
legally recognisable cause of action is pleaded. Given the
modest value and disproportionate use of court resources, the
Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim under CPR
3.4(2)(a) rather than permit amendment. The following Draft
Order is proposed:
Draft Order:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the Particulars of Claim,
though served separately, remain deficient and do not comply
with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and PD 16.7.3(1), because:
(a) They do not set out the exact wording of the clause(s) of
the terms and conditions relied upon; and
(b) They do not adequately set out the reason(s) why the
Claimant asserts that the Defendant was in breach of contract.
AND upon the claim being for a modest sum, such that the court
considers it disproportionate and contrary to the overriding
objective to allocate further resources by ordering amended
pleadings and further case management.
ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at
this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.
