08-11-2026, 09:10 PM
@b789
Thanks you so much for this.
Unfortunately, the MCOL page restricts the width of text to 63 chars and therefore the text is way too long to paste.
I have asked AI to truncate and it came back with the below. Is this sufficient ? - and sorry to be a pain.
1. The Defendant denies liability to the Claimant in full.
PRELIMINARY MATTER – DEFICIENT PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
2. The Particulars fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and PD 16.
They fail to properly plead the contractual cause of action.
3. The Claimant pleads breach of "terms on signs (the
contract)" for "Parked In An Area Where No Parking Is
Allowed." It fails to specify the exact terms, obligations,
or acts of acceptance relied upon.
4. CPR 16.4 requires a concise statement of facts. PD 16
para 7.5 requires conduct establishing an agreement to be
explicitly detailed.
5. Per Liberty Homes v Rajakanthan [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC),
it is implicit that Particulars must set out whether an
agreement is oral, written, or by conduct.
6. Under PD 7C para 5.2, detailed Particulars must be inside
the claim form or served separately with an express notice
stating "detailed particulars of claim will follow". No
such statement was included.
7. Having elected to embed its Particulars, character limit
constraints do not excuse deficient pleading. The Court is
invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4 or require
formal amendment.
NO LIABILITY AS DRIVER OR KEEPER
8. The Defendant was the registered keeper and has never
identified the driver.
9. Registered keeper status creates no presumption as to who
was driving. The Claimant is put to strict proof thereof.
10. The Defendant had no obligation to identify the driver.
Keeper liability relies solely on strict compliance with
Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA").
FAILURE TO ESTABLISH KEEPER LIABILITY UNDER POFA
11. The event occurred on 17/10/2025. No Notice to Driver was
issued; para 9 of Schedule 4 applied.
12. The Notice to Keeper was issued on 25/10/2025 but received
on 07/11/2025. The mandatory 14-day delivery period under
paras 9(4)-(5) expired on 31/10/2025.
13. The statutory presumption of delivery (para 9(6)) relies
on the actual date of posting, not the issue date printed on
the notice.
14. The Claimant failed to produce postal dispatch records or
proof of posting entering the mail system. Absent proof of
timely delivery, keeper liability under PoFA is unproven.
THE VEHICLE WAS NOT PARKED
15. The vehicle was stationary for ~65 seconds solely to
load/unload pre-ordered heavy goods. It was not parked.
16. Per Jopson v Homeguard Services [2016] B9GF0A9E, temporary
stopping for loading/unloading is distinct from parking.
CONSIDERATION PERIOD AND DE MINIMIS DURATION
17. A period of ~65 seconds is insufficient to form a
contract by conduct and is de minimis. The Claimant is put
to strict proof of its registered consideration period.
PROHIBITIVE TERMS AND ABSENCE OF CONTRACTUAL OFFER
18. If signage prohibited parking entirely, it was a
prohibition, not a contractual offer capable of acceptance.
EQUALITY ACT 2010
19. The event involved a Blue Badge holder loading heavy
goods. The Claimant is put to proof that it complied with
sections 20 & 29 Equality Act 2010 regarding reasonable
adjustments.
ADDITIONAL £70 AND LANDOWNER AUTHORITY
20. The claim includes £70 "damages". Under PoFA para 4(5),
recovery from a keeper cannot exceed the original Notice sum.
21. The Claimant is put to strict proof of contractual authority
from the landowner to manage the land and issue proceedings.
Thanks you so much for this.
Unfortunately, the MCOL page restricts the width of text to 63 chars and therefore the text is way too long to paste.
I have asked AI to truncate and it came back with the below. Is this sufficient ? - and sorry to be a pain.
1. The Defendant denies liability to the Claimant in full.
PRELIMINARY MATTER – DEFICIENT PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
2. The Particulars fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and PD 16.
They fail to properly plead the contractual cause of action.
3. The Claimant pleads breach of "terms on signs (the
contract)" for "Parked In An Area Where No Parking Is
Allowed." It fails to specify the exact terms, obligations,
or acts of acceptance relied upon.
4. CPR 16.4 requires a concise statement of facts. PD 16
para 7.5 requires conduct establishing an agreement to be
explicitly detailed.
5. Per Liberty Homes v Rajakanthan [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC),
it is implicit that Particulars must set out whether an
agreement is oral, written, or by conduct.
6. Under PD 7C para 5.2, detailed Particulars must be inside
the claim form or served separately with an express notice
stating "detailed particulars of claim will follow". No
such statement was included.
7. Having elected to embed its Particulars, character limit
constraints do not excuse deficient pleading. The Court is
invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4 or require
formal amendment.
NO LIABILITY AS DRIVER OR KEEPER
8. The Defendant was the registered keeper and has never
identified the driver.
9. Registered keeper status creates no presumption as to who
was driving. The Claimant is put to strict proof thereof.
10. The Defendant had no obligation to identify the driver.
Keeper liability relies solely on strict compliance with
Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA").
FAILURE TO ESTABLISH KEEPER LIABILITY UNDER POFA
11. The event occurred on 17/10/2025. No Notice to Driver was
issued; para 9 of Schedule 4 applied.
12. The Notice to Keeper was issued on 25/10/2025 but received
on 07/11/2025. The mandatory 14-day delivery period under
paras 9(4)-(5) expired on 31/10/2025.
13. The statutory presumption of delivery (para 9(6)) relies
on the actual date of posting, not the issue date printed on
the notice.
14. The Claimant failed to produce postal dispatch records or
proof of posting entering the mail system. Absent proof of
timely delivery, keeper liability under PoFA is unproven.
THE VEHICLE WAS NOT PARKED
15. The vehicle was stationary for ~65 seconds solely to
load/unload pre-ordered heavy goods. It was not parked.
16. Per Jopson v Homeguard Services [2016] B9GF0A9E, temporary
stopping for loading/unloading is distinct from parking.
CONSIDERATION PERIOD AND DE MINIMIS DURATION
17. A period of ~65 seconds is insufficient to form a
contract by conduct and is de minimis. The Claimant is put
to strict proof of its registered consideration period.
PROHIBITIVE TERMS AND ABSENCE OF CONTRACTUAL OFFER
18. If signage prohibited parking entirely, it was a
prohibition, not a contractual offer capable of acceptance.
EQUALITY ACT 2010
19. The event involved a Blue Badge holder loading heavy
goods. The Claimant is put to proof that it complied with
sections 20 & 29 Equality Act 2010 regarding reasonable
adjustments.
ADDITIONAL £70 AND LANDOWNER AUTHORITY
20. The claim includes £70 "damages". Under PoFA para 4(5),
recovery from a keeper cannot exceed the original Notice sum.
21. The Claimant is put to strict proof of contractual authority
from the landowner to manage the land and issue proceedings.
