Template defence to adapt for all parking cases with added 'admin/DRA' costs - edited in 2025

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

Comments invited although I am now away for a week!

I've updated the Template Defence, which can now be used and put in on MCOL. It's only 10 paragraphs and leaves enough lines for people to put some details in as para 3.

Thanks to @Johnersh @bargepole and @ChirpyChicken for the bits I have plagiarised.

There are now only 8 steps.

No need for headings nor a SoT, nor signature.  No emailing it!

Noted, thanks.  As you refer specifically to Chan & Akande after paragraph #3, would that be a good place to show the Judgments link?

Car1980

Comments invited although I am now away for a week!

Just three thoughts (shoot me down!) that may or may not be worth incorporating:

• claimant makes claim based on contract law but has never provided it
• "confirmed" better than "admitted"?
• worth mentioning that discontinuance was an intention from day 1 and that is what makes it unreasonable?

E.g.


2.  It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract, there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the limited information available, this case appears to be no different. The Claimant has never provided the wording of the contract they rely upon in any correspondence and is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs. The Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided. However, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

3. The vehicle is recognised and it is confirmed that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

10. The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst a Claimant is liable for a Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))." It is submitted that a definition of unreasonableness encompasses an intention to discontinue that has been present since the start, as may be stipulated in any contractual relationship between the parking company and bulk litigator.

Happy to delete this in a couple of weeks so we don't clog up this thread.

emmy_lou_2

Hi 
Regarding the updated template, if we are replying to a Gladstone claim do we begin with the original template 

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  adding basic facts as paragraph 6 and then continue with paragraphs 4 + of the new updated template  or  do we reply with the new template 

1. The Claimant's sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the allegation or the heads of cost.

in its entirety and adding personal facts in paragragh 3 ?? 

Le_Kirk

Use the new template but ask questions on your own thread.

doubledotcom

Are you certain that the suggested defence for the MCOL actually fits and will not be truncated?

Back in 2023, it was confirmed by the CNBC (CCBC at the time) IT department that the defence webform box has the same character limitation as the PoC one:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6444421/word-limit-when-using-the-mcol-to-file-the-defence

Le_Kirk

doubledotcom said:

Are you certain that the suggested defence for the MCOL actually fits and will not be truncated?

Back in 2023, it was confirmed by the CNBC (CCBC at the time) IT department that the defence webform box has the same character limitation as the PoC one:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6444421/word-limit-when-using-the-mcol-to-file-the-defence

Good point, the new template has 47 lines, 848 words, 4307 characters without spaces and 5152 characters with spaces.  I would have to assume that @Coupon-mad has checked this, especially as she edited it to fit in the claims box.
Also see here: -
26 May at 3:28PM <<<<LINK
HMCTS offer no guidance (that I can find) about using the defence box via MCOL
Also a poster gives further information about difficulties here: -
12 July at 2:49PM <<<<LINK

doubledotcom

I have today submitted a formal complaint to HMCTS with the following to try and elicit some clarification on the matter:

Why is there no published character limit for defences submitted via Money Claim Online (MCOL), despite Practice Direction 7E para 5.2(1) explicitly stating that Particulars of Claim must be limited to 1,080 characters? The MCOL interface provides no guidance, no warning of truncation, and no character counter for defendants. This omission creates a serious risk of procedural unfairness if defences are silently truncated without the defendant’s knowledge.

This concern is amplified by recent systemic failures within the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC), where numerous defendants have submitted defences by email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk, received auto-responses confirming receipt, and yet still had default County Court Judgments (CCJs) wrongly issued against them. These failures have been acknowledged in some cases, with CNBC setting aside CCJs administratively and even offering compensation.

Given this breakdown in the reliability of the email submission process, defendants are now being advised to use MCOL to submit their defences. However, if MCOL imposes a character limit—whether 1,080 or otherwise—it is only fair, and consistent with the overriding objective under CPR 1.1, that this limitation be clearly disclosed. Defendants must be able to make informed decisions about how to submit their defence without risking truncation or rejection due to hidden technical constraints.

I am requesting:

• A definitive, authoritative statement on the character limit for defences submitted via MCOL.
• An update to the MCOL user guide and PD 7E to reflect this limit.
• A review of CNBC’s handling of emailed defences, including audit trails and accountability mechanisms.
Immediate implementation of safeguards to prevent further wrongful CCJs due to administrative error.

LittleLittle1

Just to clarify — I tried submitting via MCOL today and can confirm that there is a strict limit on the online defence text box. My defence was significantly longer, but the system cut it off at exactly 122 lines. Anything beyond that is simply not accepted or saved.

So yes, the warning about line limits is correct — even if the character count might seem acceptable, the box has a hard cap on the number of lines.

I will post the full signed defence to the court tomorrow (Monday), as advised elsewhere.

Coupon-mad

LittleLittle1 said:

Just to clarify — I tried submitting via MCOL today and can confirm that there is a strict limit on the online defence text box. My defence was significantly longer, but the system cut it off at exactly 122 lines. Anything beyond that is simply not accepted or saved.

So yes, the warning about line limits is correct — even if the character count might seem acceptable, the box has a hard cap on the number of lines.

I will post the full signed defence to the court tomorrow (Monday), as advised elsewhere.

How much of this new template defence fitted?

doubledotcom

Assume 45 characters per line, including spaces and punctuation.

That'll be 5490 characters.

A quick copy and paste of what is there for the defence, including the advice for the user input, it's 6,128 characters. To give you an idea of what that looks like truncated to 45 characters per line (knowing how the !!!!!! It system for the MCOL is, it will split words from one line to the other)...