DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 120061--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court letter
DIR By: Howto.
Date: May 29, 2026, 2:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Is it ok to just put I defend this case in full or do I have to
list every particular of claim and say I defend it? Sorry for
being so naive. Thank you
#Post#: 120066--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court letter
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 29, 2026, 3:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Many people start their defence with a simple sentence along the
lines of "It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to relief
in the sum claimed or at all."
Following this, you set out your defence, in numbered
paragraphs. You should deal with each allegation made in the
particulars of claim, stating whether the allegation is
admitted, denied, or you are unable to admit or deny it, but
require the Claimant to prove it. From the Civil Procedure Rules
HTML https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part16#16.5:
--- Quote ---
> (1) In the defence, the defendant must deal with every
allegation in the particulars of claim, stating—
>
> (a)which of the allegations are denied;
>
> (b)which allegations they are unable to admit or deny, but
which they require the claimant to prove; and
>
> (c)which allegations they admit.
>
> (2) Where the defendant denies an allegation—
>
> (a)they must state their reasons for doing so; and
>
> (b)if they intend to put forward a different version of events
from that given by the claimant, they must state their own
version.
>
> (3) If a defendant—
>
> (a)fails to deal with an allegation; but
>
> (b)sets out in the defence the nature of their case in
relation to the issue to which that allegation is relevant,
>
> the claimant is required to prove the allegation.
--- End Quote ---
I would recommend reading as many defences on here as you can -
preferably recent - and preferably not the blanket 'template'
defences that state the Particulars of Claim are vague, but do
not actually deal with any of the allegations.
#Post#: 120067--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court letter
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: May 29, 2026, 3:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> Many people start their defence with a simple sentence along
the lines of "It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to
relief in the sum claimed or at all."
>
--- End Quote ---
Procedure Rules aside, there is a general principle that any
claim or assertion by the other party that is not addressed is
deemed to have been conceded.
#Post#: 120081--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court letter
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: May 30, 2026, 1:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Something simple - I provided this twice yesterday for two other
Smart Parking Claims;
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety and no debt is
owed to the Claimant.
2. It is acknowledged that I was the Registered Keeper of the
vehicle at the material time.
3. The Claimant is unable to identify the driver at the material
time and there is no legal obligation for the vehicle keeper to
provide this information to the Claimant and I will not be doing
so under any circumstance.
4. The Claimant appears to be relying on Protection of Freedoms
Act (PoFA) (2012) which allows them to transfer liability from
the unknown driver to the Registered Keeper but ONLY when the
strict requirements of the legislation are met.
5. That, in this instance, the Claimant is unable to meet the
requirements of PoFA as the Claimant's Notice to Keeper (NtK)
was not delivered to the Registered Keeper within the statutory
timeframe of 14 days from the date of the alleged parking event.
6. That the Claimant's issued NtK shows that the alleged parking
event took place on 1st July 2024 but the notice was not even
issued until 22nd July 2024 - this is very obviously well beyond
the 14 day period.
7. That with the Claimant unable to either identify the driver
or rely on PoFA there is no legal route to keeper liability in
this matter.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page