UKPC - Motorcycle parked outside bay - Bell Green Retail Park, London

[sinaloa]

I received this letter today. It is dated 23 April 2026 (nearly a month ago):



Does this mean they still haven't received the defence, or are they just calling it not substantive? Just as a refresher, the defence was filed through MCOL, but they claimed they hadn't received it. I then emailed the defence to LCC and cc'd myself to it. I never received a confirmation from them, though.

Appreciate any help with this.

[b789]

Why have you redacted the name of the judge and the court and dates?

[sinaloa]

Why have you redacted the name of the judge and the court and dates?

Hi b789,

My mistake. The judge's name is District Judge Rowland sitting at the County Court at Croydon.

The date at the top of the letter is 23 April 2026, matching the date at the bottom. There is no other date under those redacted sections.

Please let me know if I've missed anything, or if I should re-attach the letter without so overly redacting it!

Thanks in advance.

[b789]

@sinaloa, the order means the judge has looked at the original defence and, instead of striking the claim out for the woefully inadequate Particulars of Claim, has taken the view that the defence only attacked the pleadings and did not give a substantive response to the underlying allegation. In other words, this judge wants a defence that not only points out how badly pleaded the claim is, but also expressly denies liability on the facts and law as far as those vague particulars allow.

So, the position now is that the unless order must be complied with, otherwise the existing defence will stand struck out automatically. I will now provide a suitable replacement defence that complies with the order whilst still maintaining the point that the claimant’s PoC are hopelessly deficient and non-compliant.

The silver lining is that this is a DCB Legal claim. In the overwhelming majority of defended cases, they still bottle it and discontinue before they have to pay the £27 hearing fee.

Send the following defense as a PDF attachment in an email to both e-filing.croydon.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC enquiries.croydon.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and yourself with the covering email:

Subject: Claim No. [CLAIM NUMBER] – Defendant’s substantive Defence filed pursuant to Order dated 23 April 2026

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please find attached the Defendant’s substantive Defence, filed pursuant to the Order dated 23 April 2026.
This Defence is filed in compliance with the unless order and should be placed on the court file accordingly.

Kind regards,

[DEFENDANT NAME]

This is the defense you need to attach as a PDF:

In the County Court at Croydon

Claim No: [CLAIM NUMBER]

Between

UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED

Claimant

and

[DEFENDANT NAME]

Defendant

---

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant and denies that any sum is owed.

2. Save where expressly admitted, the Defendant denies each and every allegation in the Particulars of Claim.

3. The Particulars of Claim are sparse, generic and poorly pleaded. They do not properly identify the contractual basis of the claim, do not plead the terms said to arise from the signage with sufficient specificity, do not set out the term or terms allegedly breached, and do not explain the legal basis upon which the enhanced sum is said to be recoverable.

4. Where a claim is based on an alleged agreement, the Claimant must plead it properly. In Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Rajakanthan & Ors [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC), Mrs Justice Jefford DBE held that it is implicit that Particulars of Claim must state whether the alleged agreement is written, oral, made by conduct, or some combination, and must plead the particulars required by PD 16 para 7. In this case, the Claimant has not properly identified the alleged contractual basis said to arise by conduct from the signage and has not pleaded the alleged agreement with the specificity required by CPR 16.4 and PD 16.

5. The Defendant nevertheless responds substantively as follows, insofar as the vague Particulars permit.

6. It is denied that the Claimant has established that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the material date. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

7. Further and in the alternative, insofar as the Claimant seeks to pursue the Defendant as keeper, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to recover any sum from the Defendant as keeper unless and until strict proof is provided of full compliance with the mandatory conditions of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

8. It is denied that any contract was formed between the Claimant and the driver. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the signage at the location was sufficient in content, prominence, positioning and lighting to form a legally binding contract.

9. It is denied that the terms of any signage were adequately brought to the attention of the driver. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the signage actually in place at the material time, its wording, its locations, and that the wording was capable of creating a contractual liability for the conduct alleged.

10. The Claimant alleges that the reason for issue was that the vehicle was not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space. That allegation is denied. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the precise location of the vehicle, the bay markings relied upon, the state and visibility of those markings at the material time, and the facts said to constitute breach.

11. The Particulars of Claim do not explain with any precision what is alleged to have occurred, how long the vehicle remained in the relevant position, what photographs exist, or how the conduct complained of is said to have engaged any clearly displayed contractual term. The Defendant is therefore seriously prejudiced by the Claimant’s inadequate pleading and the Claimant is put to strict proof of every aspect of the allegation.

12. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to sue in its own name. The Claimant is put to strict proof of a contemporaneous, unredacted contract with the landowner conferring authority to manage parking, issue parking charges, and to pursue payment by litigation in its own name at this site.

13. The sum claimed is denied. The Particulars refer to £170.00 said to be the total of the parking charge and damages. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to the composition of that sum and the legal basis upon which any amount above the core parking charge is said to be recoverable.

14. It is denied that any additional sum described as damages, debt recovery, costs, or otherwise is recoverable. Such sums are not recoverable in the small claims track merely by being added to a parking charge. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any alleged entitlement.

15. The claim for interest is also denied insofar as it is based upon an exaggerated and improperly enhanced principal sum.

16. Further, the Claimant had the option of serving proper detailed Particulars of Claim but chose not to do so. The Defendant has therefore been required to respond to a claim that remains materially deficient even now, and is accordingly only able to plead in broad rebuttal whilst putting the Claimant to strict proof of all matters not expressly admitted.

17. In the premises, the Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or to any relief at all.

18. Accordingly, the Court is invited to dismiss the claim. Alternatively, the Court is invited to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and/or CPR 3.4(2)(b), on the basis that the Particulars of Claim disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and amount to an abuse of the court’s process.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed: [Type your full name here]

Date:

[sinaloa]

Thank you @b789 for the detailed reply and defence. I've just sent that over and will report back once I hear from them again.