DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 87906--------------------------------------------------
Re: Avoiding CCJ on Parking Eye unpaid PCN
DIR By: ocsan
Date: August 31, 2025, 11:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> 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 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 Particulars of Claim must, on their face, state a
concise case that enables the Defendant to understand and meet
it. The MCOL regime disapplies only any requirement to attach
documents; it does not relax CPR 16.4(1)(a). If more space was
required, the Claimant should have served separate, detailed
particulars pursuant to the MCOL practice. Any attempt to cure
deficient PoC by relying on a later witness statement or on
supposed prior correspondence is improper and does not meet the
pleading requirement.
>
> 4. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because (to the extent any of the following are not already
fully and clearly pleaded):
>
> 5. (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 set out the material wording of the
clause(s) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
> (c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason(s) why the
Claimant asserts the Defendant was in breach;
> (d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity the
precise locus within the site, the exact time of the alleged
breach and the period of parking relied upon;
> (e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including any breakdown between the principal
parking charge and any added sums;
> (f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion (if any) is said to be
additional charges;
> (g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is
sued as the driver or the registered keeper, the Claimant having
pleaded no clear capacity.
>
> 6. Persuasive County Court appeal authority supports
strike-out of inadequately particularised parking PoC: in Civil
Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023) [E7GM9W44], the PoC “did not set
out the conduct which amounted to the breach” and were struck
out; and in CPMS v Akande (2024) [K0DP5J30], the court
reaffirmed that PoC must set out the basic facts relied on under
CPR 16.4(1)(a).
>
> 7. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to the identity of
the driver. There is no legal obligation upon a registered
keeper to identify the driver.
>
> 8. If relying on PoFA Schedule 4, the Claimant is put to
strict proof of full compliance with every condition precedent:
that the site is “relevant land”; that any Notice to Keeper was
served within time and contained all prescribed elements,
including para 9(2)(e)(i) (an invitation to the keeper to pay)
and para 9(2)(a) (a specified period of parking). Absent strict
compliance, keeper liability does not arise.
>
> 9. Reliance on ANPR entry/exit timestamps does not of itself
evidence a period of parking (as distinct from driving, queueing
or taking time to read and consider terms). Strict proof is
required.
>
> 10. 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 PoC
failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain
the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
>
> 11. 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 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:
>
> 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]
Thanks b789. Do you think all these points are relevant to my
situation? I need to respond online today. Also, do I need to
state that I am open to small claim arbitration? Thanks in
anticipation of your prompt response.
#Post#: 87912--------------------------------------------------
Re: Avoiding CCJ on Parking Eye unpaid PCN
DIR By: ocsan
Date: August 31, 2025, 11:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> They have added a fake £30 to the charge which will not be
allowed if this gets to court and you are unsuccessful. Having
submitted your AoS, your defence must be submitted by 4pm on
Monday 1st September.
>
> Has the driver been identified? ParkingEye (and CPP) NtKs are
never 100% PoFA compliant. They always fail PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) as
they do not invite the Keeper to pay the charge. They only say
that if the Keeper was not the driver, they should pass the NtK
on to the driver and inform the operator of the drivers details.
>
> This paragraph mandates that for a parking operator to hold
the vehicle's registered keeper liable for a parking charge, the
Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include:
>
> An "Invitation to Pay": The notice must explicitly invite the
keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.
>
> Exact Wording: The wording must clearly convey this invitation
and mere implication or indirect suggestions are insufficient.
The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to
fully incorporate this invitation renders the notice
non-compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012.
>
> If the NtK fails to include a clear "invitation to pay", or
any synonym of the word "invitation", this omission is a breach
of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). Even if the notice suggests
that payment is required, without an explicit invitation
directed towards the keeper to settle the charge, the notice
does not meet the exacting requirements of PoFA 2012.
>
> The law mandates full and exact compliance with the specified
wording and content outlined in PoFA 2012. Even if the notice
largely complies with other requirements, the absence of a clear
invitation to the keeper to pay is a significant flaw. The
operator cannot rely on partial or even substantial compliance —
every element as specified in the legislation must be present
and correct.
>
> If the notice is found to lack this crucial element, it can be
used as a basis to challenge the parking charge. The operator
cannot transfer liability to the keeper, which significantly
weaken their case if the notice to the driver or other
requirements are also flawed or if the driver is unknown.
>
> In summary, a PCN that does not include an explicit
"invitation" for the keeper to pay the charge is not fully
compliant with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012.
Since the law demands strict adherence, any omission, even if
minor, invalidates the notice and relieves the keeper of any
obligation to pay. This should be raised in any appeal or legal
response to the charge.
>
> So, has the driver been identified? If yes, then ignore the
above information.
>
> Without seeing the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) or knowing
whether any appeal was made and if so, what was in the appeal,
it is difficult to advise further at this stage.
>
> When you have answered the questions about the NtK and any
prior submission to ParkingEye, I can come up with a suitable
defence, especially one that picks holes in their PoC.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi. I checked my home and found another letter titled 'Letter
before County Court Claim', which stated that they have added
£30. I have attached the letter here. Do I have any good
defence? I need to avoid the CCJ. Please help
#Post#: 87916--------------------------------------------------
Re: Avoiding CCJ on Parking Eye unpaid PCN
DIR By: ixxy
Date: August 31, 2025, 12:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If you are relying on the NTK not being POFA compliant, who
knows, its just b789 personal opinion and it's never been tested
in court and other experienced posters on here don't necessarily
agree. Maybe you will be the one to settle the matter one way or
the other.
As for a CCJ, you only get one of those if you lose and dont
pay, so completely your control.
#Post#: 87917--------------------------------------------------
Re: Avoiding CCJ on Parking Eye unpaid PCN
DIR By: ocsan
Date: August 31, 2025, 12:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ixxy link ---
>
> If you are relying on the NTK not being POFA compliant, who
knows, its just b789 personal opinion and it's never been tested
in court and other experienced posters on here don't necessarily
agree. Maybe you will be the one to settle the matter one way or
the other.
>
> As for a CCJ, you only get one of those if you lose and dont
pay, so completely your control.
>
--- End Quote ---
Ok Thanks. Please, what better defence do I have in this case?
#Post#: 87921--------------------------------------------------
Re: Avoiding CCJ on Parking Eye unpaid PCN
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 31, 2025, 4:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Your attachments seem to have disappeared - it would be useful
to see the Claim Form again so that we know what we're working
with, and ideally the original PCN.
--- Quote from: ixxy link ---
>
> Maybe you will be the one to settle the matter one way or the
other.
>
--- End Quote ---
Unless appealed, County Court cases seldom settle points one way
or another, beyond the specific case with which they are
dealing.
#Post#: 87951--------------------------------------------------
Re: Avoiding CCJ on Parking Eye unpaid PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: September 1, 2025, 4:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It will never be “settled one way or another” unless it is
appealed to the High Court, which is unlikely. Eve if it was
decided at county court appeal, it would not be binding, only
persuasive.
The point I make about their NtK not being fully compliant is
down to interpretation. I have discussed this with a very long
serving district judge and he agreed with me, that their NtK
does not comply with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i). If it ever gets to a
hearing, then it would have to be explained to the judge.
The NtK either is or isn’t PoFA compliant. It cannot be
partially or even mostly compliant. If it isn’t, then the Keeper
cannot be liable.
If you don’t feel like using that point, who am I to argue with
you?
#Post#: 95420--------------------------------------------------
Re: Avoiding CCJ on Parking Eye unpaid PCN
DIR By: ocsan
Date: October 24, 2025, 10:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone. This is urgent. I travelled for sometimes and now
received a letter from the court titled 'Notice of proposed
allocation to the small claim track' (I have tried to upload,
but it's not working). The letter required me to answer some
questionnaire as per my intention to agree for the case to be
allocated to a small claim proceeding. The letter must reach the
court by Monday 27th October, 2025 (in 3 days time). Please I
need your advice. How should I handle this. I don't really have
time at my side. Please advise me.
Thank you.
#Post#: 95439--------------------------------------------------
Re: Avoiding CCJ on Parking Eye unpaid PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: October 24, 2025, 12:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If you are not sure how to host images, then have a read of
this:
Why the recent High Court appellate case of Mazur is very
relevant to all cases we deal with here
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/why-the-recent-high-court-appellate-case-of-mazur-is-very-relevant-to-all-cases-/
If you are referring to the N180 Directions Questionnaire (DQ)
then follow this advice.
Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy
of the claimants N180) or been notified on MCOL that yours has
been sent, do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms
that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own N180
DQ here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply
typing your full name in the signature box.
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:
[indent]• The name of the court is "Civil National Business
Centre".
• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the
"Defendant".
• C1: "YES"
• D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their
evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any
misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking
case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on
papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage,
especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to
have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants
template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events
in question.."
• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find
it:
HTML https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
• F3: "1".
• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the
signature.[/indent]
When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email
addressed to both dq.cnbc[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk
and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the
claim number is in the subject field of the email.
#Post#: 95441--------------------------------------------------
Re: Avoiding CCJ on Parking Eye unpaid PCN
DIR By: jfollows
Date: October 24, 2025, 12:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Also see
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/posting-images/#new
#Post#: 95521--------------------------------------------------
Re: Avoiding CCJ on Parking Eye unpaid PCN
DIR By: ocsan
Date: October 25, 2025, 8:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much. Please I have uploaded the image on this
link.
HTML https://ibb.co/67xL0CZZ
Please help me review.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page