Welcome to the forum @
Dreamscape. Can you please show an image of the N1SDT Claim Form with the Particulars of Claim (PoC) or at lease tell me who is the Claimant (parking firm) and the date the claim was issued. Also, what is the location of the alleged contravention.
If the claim has been issued by DCB Legal (NOT DCBL) then as long as it is defended, they will eventually discontinue.
The PoC are materially defective and do not adequately plead a cause of action in accordance with the CPR and applicable Practice Directions. The court may require further PoC, strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a), or allow the Claimant to amend—potentially subject to costs.
The principal defects are as follows.
Failure to plead the contractual terms
CPR 16.4(1)(a) requires "a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies".
- The PoC do not identify:
- any actual term displayed on the signs;
- what the signs required the driver to do or refrain from doing;
- what the driver allegedly did;
- how that conduct breached any identified term;
- when any contract was formed;
- the consideration provided by each party; or
- the contractual provision entitling the Claimant to £100, £170 or any other amount.
"
Vehicle Remained on Private Property In Breach Of The Displayed T&Cs" is not a pleaded fact explaining the alleged breach. It is a circular conclusion: the vehicle breached the terms because it remained there in breach of the terms.
A defendant cannot sensibly admit or deny an unidentified contractual term or an unexplained breach.
Failure to plead the contract allegedly formed by conduct
The alleged parking contract would ordinarily be a contract formed by conduct. PD16 paragraph 7.5 provides:
Quote:"Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done."
Although the PoC provide a date and location, they do not properly specify the conduct by which the Defendant allegedly:
- saw or became bound by the signs;
- accepted any contractual offer; or
- breached any identified term.
Merely saying that a vehicle "remained" on the property does not properly plead the formation and breach of the alleged contract.
No proper factual basis for driver liability
"
The Defendant is pursued as the driver" is a bare assertion, not a statement of the facts supporting that allegation.
The PoC do not say:
- that the Defendant was observed driving;
- that the Defendant admitted driving;
- how the Claimant otherwise identified the Defendant as driver; or
- what conduct the Defendant personally performed.
A Claimant may plead alternative cases, but it must still plead sufficient facts supporting each alternative. "Driver, or alternatively keeper" cannot be used to conceal the fact that the Claimant does not know who incurred the alleged contractual liability.
No proper case for keeper liability
The statement that the Defendant is pursued:
Quote:"as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4"
is merely a legal conclusion. It does not plead the facts said to establish the statutory right to recover from the keeper, including:
- whether the Defendant was the registered keeper;
- whether a notice was affixed to the vehicle or the case depended upon a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK);
- whether and when the required notice was delivered;
- whether the relevant land was "relevant land";
- whether the creditor complied with the applicable conditions in paragraphs 5, 6, 8 or 9 of PoFA Schedule 4; or
- what sum was specified in the NtK.
PoFA does not make a keeper automatically liable. It creates a conditional statutory right. The Claimant must plead sufficient facts to disclose how those statutory conditions are said to have been satisfied.
The £170 is neither particularised nor explained
The claim describes £170 as:
Quote:"the total of the PC and damages".
That fails to identify:
- the amount of the original parking charge;
- the amount said to constitute "damages";
- the event allegedly causing those damages;
- whether the additional sum is contractual damages, debt-recovery costs, an administration charge or something else;
- the contractual term authorising it; or
- the legal basis upon which it is recoverable.
Calling an unidentified part of the sum "
damages" does not plead either loss or an entitlement to damages.
This is especially defective in the alternative keeper case because paragraph 4(5) of PoFA ordinarily limits the amount recoverable from a keeper to the amount specified in the NtK. The PoC do not explain how the additional sum is recoverable from the keeper despite that limitation.
The interest pleading is questionable
CPR 16.4(2) requires the Claimant to state:
- the basis of the claim for interest;
- the percentage rate;
- the date from which interest is claimed;
- the date to which it has been calculated;
- the total interest calculated to that date; and
- the continuing daily rate.
The PoC identify section 69, 8% and a daily rate, but "
from the date hereof" is unnecessarily imprecise. More importantly, £0.01 per day is not 8% per annum on £170. Eight per cent on £170 is approximately £0.037 per day, normally rounded to £0.04. The pleaded figures are therefore internally inconsistent unless interest is inexplicably being calculated on some smaller, unidentified principal sum.
MCOL does not excuse inadequate pleading
PD7C paragraph 5.2 permits detailed PoC to be included in the online claim form, subject to the character limit, or served separately if the form states that detailed PoC will follow.
The quoted wording does not say that further PoC will follow. The Claimant has therefore chosen to treat this wording as its detailed PoC under PD7C 5.2(1).
PD7C paragraph 5.2A excuses the attachment of the written contractual documents where the PoC are included in the online form. It does not excuse compliance with CPR 16.4 or PD16 paragraph 7.5, nor does it permit a claimant to omit the material facts necessary to disclose a cause of action.
So, the claim has been procedurally issued, but the PoC do not adequately disclose the factual basis of the alleged contract, breach, driver liability, alternative statutory keeper liability or additional £70. They fail to satisfy CPR 16.4(1)(a) and PD16 paragraph 7.5. The Defendant has not been told with sufficient particularity what case must be answered.
That is a very strong preliminary pleading point, but it should also accompany a substantive defence. It would be unsafe to assume that the court will strike out the claim automatically merely because the PoC are defective. However, there are precedents, both binding and persuasive that I would use in the defence.
If you want to submit a defence based on the fact that the Claimant has failed to establish a valid cause of action, you can simply paste the following as your defence:
Quote:1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered Keeper of the vehicle. No admission is made that the Defendant was the driver, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of that allegation
2. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) disclose no adequately pleaded cause of action. They comprise conclusions and generic labels, not the material facts required to establish liability
3. 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 the binding authority of 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
4. The PoC do not identify the contractual term allegedly offered, accepted or breached. Nor do they plead what the signs required, what conduct constituted acceptance, what the driver did, or how that conduct breached any identified term. The formula "Vehicle Remained on Private Property In Breach Of The Displayed T&Cs" merely asserts the conclusion that a breach occurred. It does not identify either the term or the breach
5. The persuasive appeal decision in Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (E7GM9W44, 15 August 2023) is directly applicable. HHJ Murch held that PoC which did not set out the conduct amounting to the alleged breach failed to comply with CPR 16.4 and PD16 para 7.5. The default judgment was set aside and the claim was struck out
6. Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (K0DP5J30, 10 May 2024) is further persuasive appellate authority. HHJ Evans upheld the finding that similarly generic parking PoC failed CPR 16.4. The alleged contractual term and nature of its breach are basic facts. Without them, a defendant cannot know whether to plead, for example, payment, authority or compliance
7. The statement that the Defendant is pursued as driver is a bare allegation. The PoC plead no fact capable of establishing that the Defendant drove, saw any sign, accepted an offer, or performed the unidentified conduct said to constitute breach
8. The alternative reliance upon Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) is another legal conclusion. The PoC do not plead the facts establishing any right to Keeper liability, including the applicable notice procedure, delivery of the required notice within the statutory period, compliance with the mandatory conditions, or that the site was relevant land. Keeper liability does not arise merely by citing PoFA
9. Further, PoFA para 4(5) limits the sum recoverable from a Keeper to the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper. The PoC do not state that amount or explain how £170 could be recovered from the Defendant as Keeper
10. The claim for £170 as "the total of the PC and damages" is not particularised. The PoC do not state the original parking charge, identify the alleged damages, plead any loss, or specify a contractual or other legal basis for any additional sum. Neither liability nor quantum has therefore been properly pleaded
11. The Claimant chose to include what PD7C para 5.2(1) calls "detailed particulars of claim" within the online claim form. It gave no notice under PD7C para 5.2(2) that separate PoC would follow. The MCOL character limit does not disapply CPR 16.4 or PD16 para 7.5 and cannot justify omitting the cause of action
12. In the absence of a pleaded cause of action, the Defendant cannot provide a defence to facts, terms and conduct which the Claimant has not stated. The Defendant is not required to guess or construct the Claimant's case. Pursuant to CPR 16.5(1)(b), the Defendant is unable to admit or deny the unspecified allegations and requires the Claimant to prove them
13. Requiring the Defendant to guess at an unpleaded case would also defeat the overriding objective in CPR 1.1, particularly the requirements that parties be placed on an equal footing, expense be saved, and cases be dealt with proportionately. It would also prevent the Court from identifying the real issues at an early stage as required by active case management under CPR 1.4. Generic bulk pleading achieves precisely the opposite.
14. The Court is invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a), because the PoC disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing it, and under CPR 3.4(2)(b), because issuing generic bulk PoC which conceal the case to be answered is an abuse of the Court's process.
15. Alternatively, if the Claimant is permitted to amend, the Defendant requests an order requiring fully particularised PoC, permission to file an amended Defence thereafter, and that the Claimant bear the costs caused by its defective pleading.
16. Save as expressly admitted, every allegation is denied. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the existence and terms of the alleged contract, breach, driver or Keeper liability, standing, quantum and entitlement to the relief claimed.
That should easily fit into the 122 line limitation in MCOL. However, if you can provide further details from the original PCN, I may be able to add further information. However, with the PoC as pleaded, there is no way that any case can be answered because insufficient detail has been provided in the PoC in breach of CPR 16.4(1)(a) and PD 16(7.5).
