05-15-2026, 02:03 PM
Denfence sent.
I made slight amendment under section 9 - as this case is for one PCN and not multiple. My other case was for 3.
Defence
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 the alleged
PCN. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it had contractual
authority at the precise location of the 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.
I made slight amendment under section 9 - as this case is for one PCN and not multiple. My other case was for 3.
Defence
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 the alleged
PCN. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it had contractual
authority at the precise location of the 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.
