DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 121222--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim Form from Moorside Legal
DIR By: Zedbee
Date: June 8, 2026, 5:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
hi
would this be a robust enough defence?
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I was not the driver
at the material time. The claimant's own video evidence does not
identify me as either the driver or a passenger. I am under no
legal obligation to name the driver and I decline to do so.
The Notice to Keeper ("NTK") does not comply with the mandatory
requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 ("PoFA"). In particular, it fails to specify the required
"period of parking". A single timestamp, or evidence showing
only a moment in time, is not capable of constituting a period
of parking. Furthermore, the NTK omits other mandatory wording
prescribed by PoFA regarding keeper liability. As a result, the
claimant cannot rely upon Schedule 4 to transfer liability from
the unknown driver to the registered keeper. Accordingly, I
cannot be held liable for any alleged contractual breach by the
driver.
In addition, basic principles of contract and consumer law
require that a consumer be given a reasonable opportunity to
read and understand contractual terms before any contract can be
formed. The claimant's case appears to rely upon an alleged
instantaneous contract arising the moment a vehicle stops. Such
a proposition is inherently contradictory: if a driver stopped
in order to read the terms displayed on the signage, that very
act of stopping would itself constitute the alleged breach. This
creates an impossible situation whereby compliance with the
terms is prevented by the claimant's own contractual framework.
Such an arrangement is unfair, predatory, and incapable of
creating a binding contract.
#Post#: 121233--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim Form from Moorside Legal
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 9, 2026, 3:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would recommend using the large bank of previous cases in this
forum and looking at some other defences. For starters, use
numbered paragraphs - if you reach a hearing, it's much easier
for all parties if you can refer people to specific paragraphs,
rather than "If you look at the part of my defence where I said
____".
Your defence needs to respond to each claim in the particulars
of claim. The easiest way to do this (in my opinion) is to do
this in the same order as the particulars. As an example of how
you might do this with some of the claims "2. It is denied that
the defendant was the driver. The defendant was not driving nor
present in the vehicle at the time of the alleged parking event.
3. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of
the vehicle, but liability is denied. It is denied that the
Claimant is able to recover charges from the registered keeper
using the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012..."
#Post#: 121295--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim Form from Moorside Legal
DIR By: Zedbee
Date: June 9, 2026, 2:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi thanks for the advice. could I use this? if so what should
i put in the areas of bold as it wasnt traditional "parking " it
was no stopping or does that not matter?
1. 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.
2. 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 adequately comply
with CPR 16.4.
3. For the avoidance of doubt, even if the phrase “Vehicle not
permitted & grace period exceeded” were taken to be a minimal
compliance with CPR 16.4(1)(a), the PoC remain defective. The
Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The claim is put on a contractual footing but no written
terms are pleaded or exhibited, contrary to 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 pleaded bases are internally inconsistent (“vehicle not
permitted” vs “grace period exceeded”): either parking was
prohibited (no contractual offer) or it was permitted subject to
terms; it cannot be both.;
(d) No period of parking is pleaded, nor facts explaining how
any breach is said to have occurred (a timestamp alone is
insufficient);
(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.
4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out
similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately
comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of
Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or
explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found
that requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant
submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites
the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim
due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR
16.4, 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 adequately 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 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:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. 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.
#Post#: 121297--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim Form from Moorside Legal
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 9, 2026, 3:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This isn't suitable. When I said to look at other defences, I
meant in order to get a sense of how they are structured in
paragraphs and numbered sections etc., not to copy and paste the
defence to an entirely different claim.
#Post#: 121302--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim Form from Moorside Legal
DIR By: Zedbee
Date: June 9, 2026, 4:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for setting me straight. i've nicked things from the
other defence that look to be applicable - but just going by my
common sense - so would appreciate any feedback if they are not
appropriate.
1.
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.
2.
(PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made
against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply
with CPR 16.4.
3.
particulars fail to specify the required "period of parking". A
single timestamp, or evidence showing only a moment in time and
is not capable of constituting a period of parking.
4.
contract and consumer law require that a consumer be given a
reasonable opportunity to read and understand contractual terms
before any contract can be formed.
5.
instantaneous contract arising the moment a vehicle stops. Such
a proposition is inherently contradictory: if a driver stopped
in order to read the terms displayed on the signage, that very
act of stopping would itself constitute the alleged breach.
6.
the terms is prevented by the claimant's own contractual
framework. Such an arrangement is unfair, predatory, and
incapable of creating a binding contract.
7.
a.
terms are pleaded or exhibited, contrary to CPR PD 16.7.3(1);
b.
clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or
contracts) which is/are relied on;
c.
breach is said to have occurred (a timestamp alone is
insufficient);
d.
sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant
cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
8.
driver at the material time. The claimant's own video evidence
does not identify me as either the driver or a passenger. I am
under no legal obligation to name the driver and I decline to do
so.
9.
mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA"). And as such it is denied that the
claimant is able to recover charges from the registered keeper
under PoFA.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page