06-18-2026, 07:37 PM
@Stuart, you will not have to travel to Northampton. The CNBC is simply an administrative centre where these claims are initially processed. Once your defence has been submitted and you have completed a Directions Questionnaire (DQ), the case will be transferred to your local county court. That is still many months down the line.
For now, we need to consider the defence to the claim. With an issue date of 12 June, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 1st July to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Wednesday 15 July to submit your defence.
You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/qfj81ckwc...r9v4u&dl=0
I will come to the defence shortly.
The Particulars of Claim (PoC) are defective because they fail to specify the contractual term allegedly breached. Merely asserting that there were "terms and conditions" on signage, and that the driver parked in breach of them, is not enough. Was the alleged term no parking at any time, no waiting, no stopping, no unloading, authorised vehicles only, permit required, no obstruction, or something else entirely? They do not say. They simply plead "terms and conditions" in the abstract and then assert breach. That is not proper pleading of a contractual cause of action.
A claimant suing in contract must identify the term relied upon, the act said to constitute the breach, and the basis on which the sum claimed became due. These PoC do none of that.
There are then further defects:
First, the location is still vague. "UXBRIDGE IND EST WALLINGFORD RD SALISBURY RD ARUNDEL RD UXBRIDGE UB8 2RZ" is a broad multi-road description, not a properly identified specific location.
Second, the wording "Defendant as driver and/or registered keeper" is classic Gladstones sludge. They have not properly pleaded whether the claim is pursued against the Defendant as driver, or as keeper under PoFA, or both in the alternative with a properly particularised basis for each. They just throw in "and/or" and hope for the best.
Third, the £70 add-on is still badly pleaded. They say it is for "contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions", but again they do not identify the actual term relied upon. So even if the principal claim were properly pleaded, the additional £70 is not.
Fourth, the PoC contain no proper facts about the alleged breach itself. They do not say what the vehicle was supposedly doing, for how long, where exactly, or in what way that conduct engaged the alleged term.
In short, this is the usual Gladstones template rubbish and it falls short of CPR 16.4(1)(a).
Until recently, I never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, I feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 122 lines limit.
For now, we need to consider the defence to the claim. With an issue date of 12 June, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 1st July to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Wednesday 15 July to submit your defence.
You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/qfj81ckwc...r9v4u&dl=0
I will come to the defence shortly.
The Particulars of Claim (PoC) are defective because they fail to specify the contractual term allegedly breached. Merely asserting that there were "terms and conditions" on signage, and that the driver parked in breach of them, is not enough. Was the alleged term no parking at any time, no waiting, no stopping, no unloading, authorised vehicles only, permit required, no obstruction, or something else entirely? They do not say. They simply plead "terms and conditions" in the abstract and then assert breach. That is not proper pleading of a contractual cause of action.
A claimant suing in contract must identify the term relied upon, the act said to constitute the breach, and the basis on which the sum claimed became due. These PoC do none of that.
There are then further defects:
First, the location is still vague. "UXBRIDGE IND EST WALLINGFORD RD SALISBURY RD ARUNDEL RD UXBRIDGE UB8 2RZ" is a broad multi-road description, not a properly identified specific location.
Second, the wording "Defendant as driver and/or registered keeper" is classic Gladstones sludge. They have not properly pleaded whether the claim is pursued against the Defendant as driver, or as keeper under PoFA, or both in the alternative with a properly particularised basis for each. They just throw in "and/or" and hope for the best.
Third, the £70 add-on is still badly pleaded. They say it is for "contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions", but again they do not identify the actual term relied upon. So even if the principal claim were properly pleaded, the additional £70 is not.
Fourth, the PoC contain no proper facts about the alleged breach itself. They do not say what the vehicle was supposedly doing, for how long, where exactly, or in what way that conduct engaged the alleged term.
In short, this is the usual Gladstones template rubbish and it falls short of CPR 16.4(1)(a).
Until recently, I never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, I feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 122 lines limit.
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.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
