08-14-2026, 12:05 PM
@rhbmcse, I have no idea what is going on. However, I have edited the defence and it should now fit. Please let me know how you get on.
Quote:PRELIMINARY MATTER – DEFICIENT PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety and denies that any debt is owed.
2. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) fail adequately to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 (PD16). Although a date, location and generic contravention are given, the Claimant has not properly pleaded the contractual cause of action.
3. The PoC merely allege breach of "the terms on the signs (the contract)" and "Parked In An Area Where No Parking Is Allowed". They do not identify the precise contractual term relied upon, the obligation allegedly breached or the conduct said to constitute acceptance.
4. CPR 16.4 requires a concise statement of the facts relied upon. PD16 para 7.5 requires conduct relied upon to form an agreement by conduct to be specified. In Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Rajakanthan & Ors [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC), Jefford J held at para 42 that PoC must identify whether an agreement is oral, written, by conduct or some combination.
5. Practice Direction 7C (PD7C) para 5.2 allowed the Claimant either to include detailed PoC in the online claim form or state that "detailed particulars of claim will follow" and serve them separately. It did not do so and elected to rely upon the PoC in the claim form.
6. The online character limit does not excuse deficient pleading. The Claimant chose not to use the procedure for separate detailed PoC. The Court is invited to consider strike-out under CPR 3.4 or, alternatively, require proper amendment with permission for the Defendant to amend the Defence.
NO LIABILITY AS DRIVER OR KEEPER
7. The Defendant was the registered keeper but has never admitted to being the driver or identified the driver to the Claimant.
8. The PoC pursue the Defendant as driver and alternatively as keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Sch 4 (PoFA). The Claimant cannot categorically identify the Defendant as driver and pleads no fact establishing that the Defendant was driving. Keeper status does not identify the driver.
9. The Defendant was under no legal obligation to identify the driver to a private parking operator. PoFA provides the statutory mechanism for keeper liability, subject to strict compliance. The Defendant's decision not to identify the driver cannot cure any failure to comply with PoFA.
FAILURE TO ESTABLISH KEEPER LIABILITY
10. The alleged event was on 17 October 2025. No Notice to Driver having been given, PoFA para 9 applied. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is dated 25 October 2025 but was not received until 7 November 2025.
11. PoFA paras 9(4) and 9(5) required delivery by 31 October 2025. Para 9(6) presumes delivery on the second working day after posting unless the contrary is proved. That presumption depends on the actual posting date, not the date printed on the NtK.
12. During the appeal the Claimant was expressly required to prove when the NtK entered the postal system but failed to do so. Its Accredited Trade Association Code requires a record of the posting date, including when any mail consolidator actually placed the notice into the postal system.
13. The Claimant is put to strict proof, by contemporaneous dispatch, proof of posting, mail consolidator or equivalent records, of the actual posting date. The printed issue date is not proof of posting on that date. Absent such evidence, especially where delivery was on 7 November 2025, keeper liability is not established.
THE VEHICLE WAS NOT PARKED
14. Further and alternatively, the vehicle was stationary for about 65 seconds solely for loading/unloading pre-ordered heavy goods. It was not parked.
15. The Defendant relies on Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, where HHJ Harris QC distinguished parking from temporary stopping for loading/unloading. The Claimant pleads that the vehicle was "Parked". A 65-second loading operation is materially different. Any attempt to recast the allegation as prohibited stopping would differ from the pleaded case.
CONSIDERATION/PROHIBITIVE TERMS
16. About 65 seconds is substantially shorter than any reasonable consideration period. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the period applicable to this site and any basis for saying it expired within 65 seconds. The duration is also de minimis and supports the case that this was loading, not parking.
17. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the exact wording and location of the signage. If parking was prohibited, such wording did not, without more, constitute an offer permitting the prohibited act for a charge. The Claimant must establish the offer, acceptance and precise term allegedly breached, none of which is pleaded.
EQUALITY ACT 2010
18. The circumstances involved a disabled Blue Badge holder loading/unloading heavy goods. The Defendant relies upon ss.20 and 29 Equality Act 2010 and puts the Claimant to strict proof that any reasonable adjustment required by the disability-related circumstances was considered before enforcing a charge for an activity lasting about 65 seconds.
19. The Defendant does not contend that a Blue Badge creates an unrestricted right to park on private land. The issue is whether the alleged restriction was lawfully enforced without reasonable adjustment.
ADDITIONAL £70
20. The PoC claim £170 as "the total of the PC and damages". The parking charge was £100. No proper basis or calculation for the additional £70 is pleaded. The Defendant denies it is recoverable and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the contractual term authorising it and what loss or service it represents.
21. Further, insofar as PoFA is relied upon against the keeper, para 4(5) limits the sum recoverable by virtue of keeper liability to the amount specified in the NtK.
CLAIMANT'S AUTHORITY
22. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it had sufficient landowner authority to manage the precise area, impose the restriction relied upon, recover charges in its own name and institute proceedings.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
