DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 118464--------------------------------------------------
Private parking ticket fine- Europarking Gladstone solicitors
DIR By: Waqas
Date: May 12, 2026, 1:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I received this parking ticket.
HTML https://ibb.co/LXtKzrXB
I completed AOS and submitted my defence (using template) as
follows:
"
The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant
asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no
debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately
disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim
(PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made
against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR
16.4(1)(a).
The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the
PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.3(1);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or
contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons)
why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract
(or contracts)
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly
where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach
occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked
before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,
damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is
sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant
cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out
similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately
comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), particularly where the Particulars
of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or
explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity. The
Defendant refers specifically to the persuasive appellate cases:
Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023), Luton County Court, HHJ
Murch, ref: E7GM9W44
CPMS Ltd v Akande (2024), Manchester County Court, HHJ Evans,
ref: K0DP5J30
In both cases, the claim was struck out due to identical
failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
The Defendant invites the Court to strike out this claim of its
own initiative. The Defendant relies on the judicial reasoning
set out in Chan and Akande, as well as other County Court cases
involving identical failures to adequately comply with CPR 16.4.
In those cases, the court further observed that, given the
modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps
would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding
objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright
rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that
the following Order be made:
Draft Order:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do
not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out
the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and
conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is (or are)
relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or
reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in
breach of contract.
AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it
served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have
done pursuant to CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.
AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the
court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with
the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share
of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of
claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals
to the judge for case management.
ORDER:
The claim is struck out.
Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay
this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this
Court not more than 5 days after service of this order, failing
which no such application may be made. "
Court received ny defence and defence was sent to the claimant.
Then received email from the solicitor
"Dear ..............
We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of the
Claimant’s intention to proceed with the Claim.
Please find enclosed a copy of the Claimant’s completed
Directions Questionnaire, which has also been filed with the
Court.
You will note the Claimant has elected to mediate in an attempt
to settle this matter amicably, without the need for further
Court intervention. Should you agree to mediation, please inform
the Court who will contact both parties to arrange a mediation
appointment.
Yours sincerely
Skye
Legal Assistant
Glad... Solicitors Limited " They have also sent a filled N180
form attached.
HTML https://ibb.co/JjgmbjBk
Defendent N-180
HTML https://ibb.co/zH2Rfmf8
Claimant N-180
also I objecetd to claimant N-180
"
County Court Business Centre (CNBC)
Claim no.: [XXXXXXX]
Parties: [Claimant] v [Defendant]
OBJECTION TO CLAIMANT’S N180 DIRECTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE (DEFECTIVE
SIGNATURE & AUTHORISATION)
I object to the Claimant’s purported filing of Form N180, which
is “signed” only as “Gladstones Solicitors Ltd” with no
identified individual signatory.
Signature defect (PD 5A)
Form N180 requires a valid signature by the party or an
identified legal representative. Practice Direction 5A requires
documents to be signed where indicated by the person
responsible; where that person acts as a member/employee of a
firm, the firm’s name may be added, but a firm name alone is not
a signature. The absence of an identified individual undermines
accountability and is procedurally defective.
Conduct of litigation (Legal Services Act 2007)
Signing and filing an N180 is a step in the “conduct of
litigation” within s.12 and Schedule 2 paragraph 4 of the Legal
Services Act 2007. Only the party, an authorised person, or an
exempt person under Schedule 3 may carry out reserved legal
activities.
Mazur
authority
The High Court in
Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
[2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) (16 September 2025) confirmed that
employees who are not themselves authorised (and not within a
Schedule 3 exemption) cannot conduct litigation, even if
supervised. The individual who signs must personally be
authorised (or exempt).
Potential statutory non-compliance
If the person who completed/signed the N180 is not authorised or
exempt, carrying on a reserved legal activity may contravene
s.14 of the Legal Services Act 2007.
Directions sought
A) That the Claimant be directed within 7 days to re-file and
serve a properly signed N180 which:
(i) identifies the individual signatory by name and
status/position; and
(ii) confirms that the signatory is authorised (or states the
relied-upon Schedule 3 exemption) to conduct litigation.
B) That until compliance, the current N180 be treated as
defective and disregarded for case-management purposes, with any
further sanction at the Court’s discretion in the event of
non-compliance.
Service
These documents are served on the Claimant’s solicitors by copy
of this email.
Signed:
[Date] "
Then there was mediation appointment- which I attended and which
was not success full. My case got transfered to Manchester
court. Manchester court struck off the case and asked claiment
to re-submit with the detailed version. Claimant submitted the
new claim as below
HTML https://ibb.co/b5W3JgJx
HTML https://ibb.co/M5sM1mrm
Then claimant submitted a new claim:
HTML https://ibb.co/gMCzqgVG
HTML https://ibb.co/YBWFYSBP
HTML https://ibb.co/qFp4zGNg
HTML https://ibb.co/3Y19dVkJ
HTML https://ibb.co/QjF9Lvzh
HTML https://ibb.co/LXn5kXDR
HTML https://ibb.co/8gYybbqC
HTML https://ibb.co/VWcY2p60
HTML https://ibb.co/M5Rr8TTz
HTML https://ibb.co/xK8WqVQV
HTML https://ibb.co/9HmYCvDQ
HTML https://ibb.co/G45tV1Rx
HTML https://ibb.co/g2yCwCm
HTML https://ibb.co/hJH4b6MS
HTML https://ibb.co/7tBPKT18
Now I have till 20 May to update my defence, I would appreciate
some guidance on what changes I should make to strengthen my
defence.
#Post#: 118508--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking ticket fine- Europarking Gladstone
solicitors
DIR By: RichardW
Date: May 13, 2026, 1:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Do you have the original PCN?
What was the car doing there, was the driver a user of either of
the places in question?
On the face of it it looks to me like the defence would need to
home in on the keeper liability (or hopefully lack thereof!).
#Post#: 118532--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking ticket fine- Europarking Gladstone
solicitors
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 13, 2026, 5:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In my view, there are two angles from which you can defend:
The first thing I would do in your amended defence (after the
initial standard point denying that the claimant is entitled to
any sum) is to state that the Claimant has not actually complied
with the judge's order. The order stated that the new
Particulars of Claim must identify "whether the claim is brought
under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act". The
particulars still do not do this - they again set out
alternative causes of action. They say that the claim is brought
under PoFA "where applicable", but do not confirm whether it is
applicable (and they are therefore seeking to rely on it) in
this case. They then go on in 5.2 of their PoC to say "where
PoFA is not relied upon...".
They have therefore not identified whether or not the claim is
brought under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, and
have therefore failed to comply with the court's order. The
claim should therefore be struck out.
In case it is not, you may then wish to go on and present a more
thorough defence that responds to each of the allegations in the
new PoC. However, I would definitely lead with the points around
them failing to comply with the order.
#Post#: 118625--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking ticket fine- Europarking Gladstone
solicitors
DIR By: Waqas
Date: May 13, 2026, 2:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much- DWMB2- Global Moderator
My draft defence is as follows:
"SUBSTITUTE DEFENCE
The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant
asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no
debt is owed.
The Defendant acknowledges receipt of the amended Particulars of
Claim purportedly served pursuant to the Order dated 11 March
2026. However, the Defendant submits that the Claimant has
failed to comply with the terms and requirements of that Order.
The Order expressly directed the Claimant to identify “whether
the claim is brought under Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012”. The amended Particulars of Claim fail to do
so with the requisite certainty or specificity.
In particular:
(a) the amended Particulars of Claim state that the claim is
brought pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (“POFA”) “where applicable”, but fail to state whether POFA
is in fact applicable and relied upon in this claim;
(b) the amended Particulars of Claim continue to plead
alternative and inconsistent causes of action by further stating
at paragraph 5.2 that “where POFA is not relied upon”, the
Claimant will instead seek to establish liability on an
alternative basis;
(c) the Claimant has therefore failed to identify clearly and
unequivocally whether the Defendant is pursued as driver, keeper
pursuant to POFA, or both;
(d) the amended Particulars of Claim continue to advance
speculative and contradictory alternatives without properly
pleading the legal basis upon which the Claimant seeks to
recover the alleged debt.
Accordingly, the Defendant submits that the Claimant has failed
to comply with the Court’s Order and continues to fail
adequately to particularise the basis of the claim with
sufficient clarity and precision. The Defendant respectfully
invites the Court to strike out the claim.
Further and in the alternative, if the Court is not minded to
strike out the claim, the Defendant responds to the amended
Particulars of Claim as follows.
The Defendant denies that any enforceable contractual liability
arose between the Claimant and the Defendant.
The Defendant is unable fully to understand the contractual
basis of the claim because:
(a) the Claimant has failed to provide strict proof that the
signage relied upon was sufficiently prominent, legible,
illuminated (if applicable), and capable of binding a reasonable
motorist;
(b) the Claimant has failed to provide strict proof that the
terms and conditions relied upon were adequately brought to the
attention of drivers prior to any alleged contract being formed;
(c) the Claimant has failed to provide strict proof regarding
the precise location, positioning, prominence, wording, and
visibility of the signage relied upon at the material time;
(d) the Claimant has failed to provide strict proof that the
keypad registration system referred to in the amended
Particulars of Claim was operational, accessible, properly
maintained, clearly explained to patrons, and functioning
correctly at the material time.
The Defendant denies that the Claimant has sufficiently proven
the identity of the driver and the Claimant is put to strict
proof thereof.
To the extent that the Claimant seeks to rely upon Schedule 4 of
POFA, the Defendant denies that the Claimant has complied with
the mandatory statutory requirements necessary to establish
keeper liability. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full
compliance with each and every requirement of Schedule 4 of
POFA.
Further and in the alternative, if POFA is not relied upon, the
Claimant is required to prove, on the balance of probabilities,
the identity of the driver. Mere keeper status does not create
any lawful presumption of driver liability.
The Defendant further denies that the additional sum of £60,
described variously as “contractual costs”, “debt recovery
costs” or similar, is recoverable.
The Defendant avers that the additional £60 constitutes an
attempt at double recovery and is contrary to established
authority and the indemnity principle. The Claimant is put to
strict proof that such sum was genuinely incurred, contractually
agreed, and lawfully recoverable.
The Defendant further avers that the additional charges claimed
exceed the level of parking charge considered by the Supreme
Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and that no
legitimate interest or commercial justification has been
established for the enhanced sum now claimed.
The Defendant denies that the contractual terms relied upon were
fair, transparent, or sufficiently prominent so as to satisfy
the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The Defendant notes that the original claim was previously found
by the Court not to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), resulting in the
original Particulars of Claim being struck out unless amended.
The Defendant maintains that the amended pleading remains
materially deficient for the reasons set out above.
The Defendant respectfully reserves the right to amend,
supplement, or expand upon this Defence should further
documents, evidence, or information be disclosed by the
Claimant."
#Post#: 118655--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking ticket fine- Europarking Gladstone
solicitors
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 14, 2026, 4:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You should number your paragraphs, as the claimant has done. In
the event you reach a hearing, it's much easier for everyone to
follow if you can easily reference parts of your defence by
number, rather than the judge having to scan through the whole
thing to find the point you're referring to.
When you get onto your points about driver identification and
PoFA, you seem to switch back and forth unnecessarily. You
mention that the driver is not known to the claimant and put
them to proof, then you assert that they have not complied with
PoFA, then you go back to putting the claimant to proof about
the identity of the driver. It would be better to keep like
points together.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1