Received POC from BWLegal on behalf of UK CPM Ltd

[b789]

@Barbudaprince, I now generally advise submitting a short defence through MCOL. Whilst MCOL is limited in that it does not allow formatting or the attachment of transcripts and other documents, it has the important advantage of being submitted instantly and entered into the court system immediately. Given the continuing administrative failures at the CNBC, that is now the safer course. Any authorities, transcripts or other documents can be filed later with the Witness Statement if the claim progresses that far.

You will need to copy and paste the defence into the MCOL defence text box. It has been checked to ensure that it fits within the 122-line limit.

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. No debt is owed to the Claimant, whether as alleged or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim are generic and inadequately pleaded, contrary to CPR 16.4 and PD 16. Where a claim is based upon an agreement, PD 16 requires proper particulars of that agreement. In Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Rajakanthan & Ors [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC), Mrs Justice Jefford DBE held that it is implicit that the Particulars of Claim must set out whether the agreement relied upon is oral, written, by conduct, or some combination. The Claimant has failed to do so.

3. The Particulars fail to identify with sufficient precision the alleged contract, the specific term breached, the signage relied upon, the precise location of each alleged breach, or the factual basis on which the Defendant is pursued as driver and/or keeper.

4. The Defendant is the registered keeper. The driver has not been identified. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver’s identity and, alternatively, of full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) if it seeks keeper liability.

5. The Notices to Keeper fail to specify any proper period of parking. They do not identify a start time, end time, duration, or actual observation period. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any alleged period of parking and any basis for keeper liability under PoFA para 9(2)(a).

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any driver was given the required consideration period before any parking contract could be formed. The Defendant denies that the Claimant has evidenced any continuous observation period or any fair opportunity for a driver to read the signs, consider the terms and leave as required under the Claimants Approved Trade Association (ATA) mandate.

7. The alleged location is inadequately and/or inaccurately identified as another brach of the requirements of PoFA para 9(2)(a) in order to hold the Defendant liable as the Keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the exact relevant land, the precise vehicle locations, the signs allegedly applicable at those locations, and the basis on which the pleaded location corresponds with the land on which the vehicle was allegedly parked.

8. The Defendant was a tenant/resident at the property at the material time. Parking was already governed by the residential/tenancy arrangements. The Claimant’s signage did not override those pre-existing rights or create liability to the Claimant unless the Claimant proves a separate enforceable contract.

9. The Defendant understands that the Claimant’s own boundary/authority map does not cover the hard-standing area where the vehicle was located for at least two of the alleged PCNs. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it had contractual authority at the precise location of each alleged contravention.

10. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the signage was visible, prominent, applicable to the precise vehicle locations, and capable of forming a contract. Any prohibitory wording is denied to create a contractual licence or liability for a parking charge.

11. The added sum is denied as unrecoverable, unsupported and inadequately pleaded. If the Claimant relies on keeper liability, recovery from the keeper is limited to the amount specified on the relevant Notice to Keeper.

12. The Claimant could have served detailed Particulars of Claim but chose not to do so. Having regard to the overriding objective under CPR 1.1, the generic and deficient pleading, the modest sum claimed, and the routine bulk nature of these proceedings, the Defendant submits that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or allocate further court resources to this claim.

13. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim of its own initiative pursuant to CPR 3.4 and CPR 3.3, or alternatively to order fully particularised Particulars of Claim with permission for the Defendant to file an amended defence.