Wow - It still didn't fit, but with removing the lines stating each category of defence, it fitted with one line spare!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have submitted as above and...we shall wait and see.
Thank you again.
Br,
Rob.
The following errors have occurred:
This field has invalid character. You cannot use < > "
Wow - I mean Wow. How hard do they want to make this... ???
So I can't use < > "
Guess I'll go back and edit it again... Jeez...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have submitted as above and...we shall wait and see.
Thank you again.
Br,
Rob.
The following errors have occurred:
This field has invalid character. You cannot use < > "
Wow - I mean Wow. How hard do they want to make this... ???
So I can't use < > "
Guess I'll go back and edit it again... Jeez...
