DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 83232--------------------------------------------------
Claim Form received for a Parkmaven PCN at The Centre, Feltham -
England
DIR By: AlexDove
Date: July 28, 2025, 6:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
On 16th of January 2025 I have received a PCN from Parkmaven
amounting to £100.
It appeared that the letter received was the 2nd letter they
sent as the original fee would have been £60, that means more
than 14 days would have passed at the time of receiving what
should have been the 2nd letter.
The problem is that I have never received the first letter
issued by them, which should have been issued in December 2024.
I have communicated with Parkmaven via e-mail and I explained
that I have not received the first letter. The parking for which
the PCN was issued was also supposed top be free for the first 2
hrs if the customer would have spent £10 or more in ASDA, one of
the retailers in the shopping area (The Centre Feltham), and it
happened that I have been to ASDA that day and spent £29. From
what I read on the shopping centre website I believe you were
supposed to scan the ASDA receipt to the parking payment machine
or something. Unfortunately I have not taken the receipt being
unaware, therefore I have not scanned or paid anything. I am
aware and I understand why some of you would accuse me that I
should have paid attention and if I did not take the receipt,
then I should have paid the parking, and I agree! I usually do
that, I pay my parking where needed, never tried to dodge one.
I was the first time when I visited that shopping centre in
Feltham (together with my wife and my 7 yrs old son) for a
return to Dunelm, then I popped in to ASDA for a quick grocery
shop, then hurry to the car and go as it was an extremely windy
day - That's my only excuse, I genuinely did not realised that
it was a private / paid for parking.
I have mentioned to Parkmaven that I have been an ASDA customer
that day and offered to send the proof of purchase (bank
statement). They have replied that that their records show that
the first letter has been sent on 13/12/24. They have also said
that as 28 days from the first letter passed I am no longer able
to make an appeal.
They have also said that : "Unfortunately, once a letter has
been dispatched, we cannot take responsibility for its
delivery." - and in my mind this admission, was supposed to be
my line of defence in case things will be escalated.
They have offered to reset the 14 days for the reduced fee
charge so they reduced the fine to £60 again - and some or most
of you would probably say that I should have taken that and get
rid of the headaches - I am telling myself the same thing now.
Anyway I have refused and asked them politely to reset the 28
days appeal period, as I wanted to submit a formal appeal,
thinking that I should have a shot giving the fact I had proof
of shopping in ASDA (the bank statement proof) - that might be
stupid but I read some local forums where people had the same
issue at that shopping centre and they have filed an appeal
using the bank statement proof and their PCN's were cancelled.
Moving forward, on the 5th of February I have sent a formal and
polite e-mail asking that the appeal deadline would be
reconsidered so I would have a fair chance to appeal this
charge, considering the fact that I have never received the
first letter issued and having them admitting via e-mail that
they do not have a proof of delivery.
After this I have contacted Parkmaven on another 4 occasions via
e-mail requesting an answer to my e-mail sent on the 5th of
February where I asked a reconsideration of the appeal deadline.
I have only received automated messages that my request has been
received and it will be reviewed by the support team, but it has
never been reviewed.
Next time when Parkmaven responded or contacted me was through
DCBL - via Debt Recovery Letter - asking me to pay £170. I have
probably received 5 or 6 of those reminders and this time to be
honest I have ignored them as I felt it was unfair that
Parkmaven did not answer to my request/s and was probably
thinking or hopping that they will bloody stop sending
reminders, plus also thinking that I would rather go to court
before paying £170.
Now of course I think I should have paid the £60 when I had the
chance and avoid months of stress.
Last communication via post was when I received the Claim Form,
issued on 16/07/2025
They are requesting £177 - Parkmaven (the £170 DCBL asked for
plus interest)
£35 - Court Fee
£50 - Legal Representative costs
Total £262
Reason I wrote all this long story is because I have no idea
what to do and I certainly would not want to pay what they
claim. I would like to ask for any advice if any of you have
been in this situation or if you think I would have a shot in
Court, my claim being that I have been an Asda customer that day
and I wanted to have a right to appeal.
Any advice positive or negative is appreciated, thank you!
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 83238--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim Form received for a Parkmaven PCN at The Centre,
Feltham - England
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 29, 2025, 1:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
First, ask CEO@asda.com to cancel this for you.
Second, if this doesn’t work, post the exact text of your
appeal. It sounds as if you identified the driver in it, and
that may or may not be important.
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
#Post#: 83328--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim Form received for a Parkmaven PCN at The Centre,
Feltham - England
DIR By: b789
Date: July 29, 2025, 11:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Follow thew advice here and you will not be paying a penny to
ParkMaven. With an issue date of 16th July, you have until 4pm
on Monday 4th August to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Monday 18th August to submit your defence.
If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in
this linked PDF:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
You only need to do the AoS if you need extra time to file your
defence.
Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a
defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the
CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence
using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the
"system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or
inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with
the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that
far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on
MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the
65 characters per line and 122 lines limit.
--- Quote ---
> 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. 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.
>
> 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.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 85539--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim Form received for a Parkmaven PCN at The Centre,
Feltham - England
DIR By: AlexDove
Date: August 13, 2025, 11:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
.
#Post#: 85547--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim Form received for a Parkmaven PCN at The Centre,
Feltham - England
DIR By: AlexDove
Date: August 13, 2025, 11:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Follow thew advice here and you will not be paying a penny to
ParkMaven. With an issue date of 16th July, you have until 4pm
on Monday 4th August to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Monday 18th August to submit your defence.
>
> If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in
this linked PDF:
>
>
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
>
> You only need to do the AoS if you need extra time to file
your defence.
>
> Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit
a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the
CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence
using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the
"system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or
inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with
the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that
far.
>
> You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box
on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into
the 65 characters per line and 122 lines limit.
>
> [quote]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. 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.
>
> 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.
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
b789 thank you! As I did not manage to log onto MCOL I have sent
the AoS via email to
aos.cnbc[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk
Eventually managed to log on MCOL once and the message said that
a bar has been put in place on the claim and that I cannot
respond to the claim at this time. I tried to log in again and I
was not able saying that my user or password are wrong (I have
100% used the correct details) - that makes me think that there
might be an issue with MCOL.
I have sent the AoS via email to
aos.cnbc[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk
Regarding the defence and thank you for posting it, shouldn't I
highlight that I never received the first letter from the
claimant, and because of that I was not allowed to submit an
appeal as the appeal period passed in their view? Also,
Parkmaven admitted via e-mail that they do not have a proof of
delivery for the letter. Also the 2hrs free parking offered for
ASDA customers? I was under the impression that these would be
actually be helpful for the defence statement?
Regarding sending the defence statement I was advised by a
gov.uk tel support agent to send the defence to
claimresponses.cnbc[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk
#Post#: 85548--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim Form received for a Parkmaven PCN at The Centre,
Feltham - England
DIR By: AlexDove
Date: August 13, 2025, 11:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> First, ask CEO@asda.com to cancel this for you.
>
> Second, if this doesn’t work, post the exact text of your
appeal. It sounds as if you identified the driver in it, and
that may or may not be important.
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
>
--- End Quote ---
I did send an e-mail to ceo@asda.com as well, might have been a
little to late, however I did not receive a response. From what
I read the vast majority of e-mails sent to ceo@asda.com are
forwarded or dealt with by their customer service department.
Regarding my appeal, that was not a formal appeal, as I was not
allowed to do one on Parkmaven website due to the appeal period
passing, as I did receive correspondence from them 30 days after
they have supposedly sent me the first letter, which I did not
receive. So the appeal, was an e-mail sent by me to their
support or complaints e-mail address. I did not admit that I was
the driver specifically, but I did admit that I visited The
Centre the site of the parking with my wife and son on the day.
#Post#: 85550--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim Form received for a Parkmaven PCN at The Centre,
Feltham - England
DIR By: b789
Date: August 13, 2025, 11:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
After the first time you log into MCOL, any subsequent log in is
via your Government Gateway. You can email
MCOLITassistance[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk with:
[indent]• Your claim number
• our full name and address
• a screenshot or description of the error
• request for urgent access or confirmation of claim
status[/indent]
Did you submit an AoS? Did you follow the instructions to the
letter in the linked PDF on how to submit the AoS? If you did
not submit your defence or at least an AoS by 4pm on Monday 4th
August, then the “bar has been put in place” message typically
means the claimant has requested a default judgment or the claim
has progressed to a stage where online responses are restricted.
If you didn't submit an AoS by the date above, why not?
As for your questions above the defence, you have been advised
what to put in it. Anything else, should it ever proceed all the
way to a hearing and the claimant submits their Witness
Statement, then you can rebut their allegations with all the
detail you have questioned.
For example: "Also, Parkmaven admitted via e-mail that they do
not have a proof of delivery for the letter". Of course they
DON'T have proof of delivery if they didn't use a recorded
delivery service, which they don't. However, if they claim it
was posted, you can put them to proof that it was in fact posted
by way of a "proof of posting" certificate or equivalent.
The rebuttable presumption of posting arises from Section 7 of
the Interpretation Act 1978, which states:
[indent]“Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be
served by post (whether the expression ‘serve’ or the expression
‘give’ or ‘send’ or any other expression is used), then, unless
the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be
effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter
containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to
have been effected at the time at which the letter would be
delivered in the ordinary course of post.”[/indent]
The rebuttable presumption under the Interpretation Act does not
magically shift the burden of proof onto the defendant. The
claimant must first establish the foundational facts—that the
notice was:
[indent]• Properly addressed
• Prepaid
• Actually posted[/indent]
Only then does the presumption kick in. And even then, it’s
rebuttable, meaning the defendant’s credible denial of receipt
can defeat it, especially if the claimant cannot produce
evidence of posting.
Anyway, back to the main question... Did you submit an AoS
before 4pm on Monday 4th August?
#Post#: 85561--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim Form received for a Parkmaven PCN at The Centre,
Feltham - England
DIR By: AlexDove
Date: August 13, 2025, 12:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> After the first time you log into MCOL, any subsequent log in
is via your Government Gateway. You can email
MCOLITassistance[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk with:
>
> [indent]• Your claim number
> • our full name and address
> • a screenshot or description of the error
> • request for urgent access or confirmation of claim
status[/indent]
>
> Did you submit an AoS? Did you follow the instructions to the
letter in the linked PDF on how to submit the AoS? If you did
not submit your defence or at least an AoS by 4pm on Monday 4th
August, then the “bar has been put in place” message typically
means the claimant has requested a default judgment or the claim
has progressed to a stage where online responses are restricted.
>
> If you didn't submit an AoS by the date above, why not?
>
> As for your questions above the defence, you have been advised
what to put in it. Anything else, should it ever proceed all the
way to a hearing and the claimant submits their Witness
Statement, then you can rebut their allegations with all the
detail you have questioned.
>
> For example: "Also, Parkmaven admitted via e-mail that they do
not have a proof of delivery for the letter". Of course they
DON'T have proof of delivery if they didn't use a recorded
delivery service, which they don't. However, if they claim it
was posted, you can put them to proof that it was in fact posted
by way of a "proof of posting" certificate or equivalent.
>
> The rebuttable presumption of posting arises from Section 7 of
the Interpretation Act 1978, which states:
>
> [indent]“Where an Act authorises or requires any document to
be served by post (whether the expression ‘serve’ or the
expression ‘give’ or ‘send’ or any other expression is used),
then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is
deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and
posting a letter containing the document and, unless the
contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which
the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of
post.”[/indent]
>
> The rebuttable presumption under the Interpretation Act does
not magically shift the burden of proof onto the defendant. The
claimant must first establish the foundational facts—that the
notice was:
>
> [indent]• Properly addressed
> • Prepaid
> • Actually posted[/indent]
>
> Only then does the presumption kick in. And even then, it’s
rebuttable, meaning the defendant’s credible denial of receipt
can defeat it, especially if the claimant cannot produce
evidence of posting.
>
> Anyway, back to the main question... Did you submit an AoS
before 4pm on Monday 4th August?
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes I have submitted the AoS on 30/07/2025 but not through MCOL
as I was unable to log. Because of that I have called the money
claim tel number provided on the gov.uk website and I have been
advised to send the AoS via email at
aos.cnbc[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk
As I did mention that I was unable to log, the same adviser
confirmed that there might be issues with the MCOL portal and
also advised me to submit my defence statement via e-mail at
claim responses.cnbc[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk.
To be honest I tried to use chat GPT to formulate my defence/
witness statements according to info provided and it did to some
degree, but focused on the information provided by me but failed
rebutting the PoC's even if I did provide them.
I never even though that the claimant PoCs might be flawed or
incorrect because is the first time when I am dealing with a
money claim or anything related to courts and tribunals, so that
comes as a foreign language to me :) Therefore I am very much
amazed of the clarity and technicality you provided and very
grateful indeed!
Sorry to repeat myself but I just want to make sure I ma not
sending the wrong things...
Do I copy/paste the defence you posted and send it via email:
claimresponses.cnbc"justice.gov.uk - will this be ok? is it
better to try to contact
MCOLITassistance[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk as you
advised, I am not sure I have enough time for that, as in if
they will respond in time. To be honest I thought today is the
last day when I can submit my defence statement (the 14th day
extension from the day I submitted the AoS which was on
30/07/2025)? if the deadline is on 18ht of August that's
amazing, gives me some relief.
From what I read there is no need to submit any evidence (print
screens of parking signage, receipts from ASDA or email
correspondence with the claimant) until the witness statement
stage, whenever that is. Moreover if none of those details are
mentioned in the defence drafted by you as the defence is
focused on rebutting the claimant PoC's that kind of evidence is
irrelevant now.
Apologies for the long post and again thank you so much for your
advice and help with this!
#Post#: 85567--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim Form received for a Parkmaven PCN at The Centre,
Feltham - England
DIR By: b789
Date: August 13, 2025, 1:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As long as you submitted the AoS before the deadline, then you
still have until 4pm on Monday 18th August to submit the
defence. It doesn't matter when the AoS is submitted, as long as
it is before the deadline. Even if the AoS is submitted the day
after you receive the claim, it extends the deadline for defence
submission to 28 days from the date of service, which is 5 days
after the issue date. If the 28th day falls on a weekend or bank
holiday, then the deadline is extended to 4pm on the next
working day.
As you are now going to submit the defence, I advise you to do
so using the following information:
You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign
the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date
it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.
When you're ready you combine both documents as a single PDF
attachment and send as an attachment in an email to
claimresponses.cnbc[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk and CC
in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field
and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the
defence and draft order in the matter of Parkmaven Ltd v [your
full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."
--- Quote ---
> [center]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/center]
> [right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
>
> [center]BETWEEN:
>
> Parkmaven Ltd
> Claimant
>
> - and -
>
> [Defendant's Full Name]
> 
Defendant
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> DEFENCE[/center]
>
> 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 comply with CPR
16.4.
>
> 3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
>
> [indent](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.[/indent]
>
> 4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft
order approved by a district judge at another court. The court
struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining
that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4.
The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:
>
> [indent](i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
>
> (ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was
allegedly in breach of contract;
>
> (iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as
permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
>
> (iv) 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.[/indent]
>
> 5. 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 for the Claimant’s failure to comply with
CPR 16.4.
>
> 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:
>
>
> Date:
--- End Quote ---
Draft Order for the defence
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tcewefk7daozuje25chkl/Strikeout-order-v2.pdf?rlkey=wxnymo8mwcma2jj8xihjm7pdx&st=nbtf0cn6&dl=0
#Post#: 85571--------------------------------------------------
Re: Claim Form received for a Parkmaven PCN at The Centre,
Feltham - England
DIR By: AlexDove
Date: August 13, 2025, 1:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> As long as you submitted the AoS before the deadline, then you
still have until 4pm on Monday 18th August to submit the
defence. It doesn't matter when the AoS is submitted, as long as
it is before the deadline. Even if the AoS is submitted the day
after you receive the claim, it extends the deadline for defence
submission to 28 days from the date of service, which is 5 days
after the issue date. If the 28th day falls on a weekend or bank
holiday, then the deadline is extended to 4pm on the next
working day.
>
> As you are now going to submit the defence, I advise you to do
so using the following information:
>
> You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign
the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date
it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.
>
> When you're ready you combine both documents as a single PDF
attachment and send as an attachment in an email to
claimresponses.cnbc[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk and CC
in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field
and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the
defence and draft order in the matter of Parkmaven Ltd v [your
full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."
>
> [quote]
> [center]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/center]
> [right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
>
> [center]BETWEEN:
>
> Parkmaven Ltd
> Claimant
>
> - and -
>
> [Defendant's Full Name]
> 
Defendant
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> DEFENCE[/center]
>
> 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 comply with CPR
16.4.
>
> 3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
>
> [indent](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.[/indent]
>
> 4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft
order approved by a district judge at another court. The court
struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining
that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4.
The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:
>
> [indent](i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
>
> (ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was
allegedly in breach of contract;
>
> (iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as
permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
>
> (iv) 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.[/indent]
>
> 5. 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 for the Claimant’s failure to comply with
CPR 16.4.
>
> 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:
>
>
> Date:
--- End Quote ---
Draft Order for the defence
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tcewefk7daozuje25chkl/Strikeout-order-v2.pdf?rlkey=wxnymo8mwcma2jj8xihjm7pdx&st=nbtf0cn6&dl=0
[/quote]
Thank you so much for this!
Will do as advised!
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page