First Timer - Nervous - Can we fight this one together!

Omesha

troublemaker22 said:

Appealing under a made up name might turn out to be a less than brilliant idea.  If you used an alias to file an appeal,  the parking operator can make a reasonable case for suing you under the alias you chose for yourself and registering any ensuing judgment against you personally (assuming they can figure it all out).  

Thank you. I was expecting the appeal to be accepted under some reasonable grounds. Wasn't expecting it to come to this 🫣

Not completely clear from the newbie thread what im meant to do with this money request. 

Thanks all

Omesha

Ok, there is so much information on this forum which is both a good and bad thing. But now, thanks to your guidance I'm starting to see the wood through the trees and recognise that what i have is a MoneyClaim via MCOL. 
Step 1: Completing the AOS next Friday (18th) which is eight days after the issue date. Although the named defendant is not correct. I will pursue as the registered keeper.
Step 2: Draft a defence. Which i will start now.
Step 3: Follow the 12 steps of defence. 

Coupon-mad

I don't see how you can.

Omesha

Omesha said:

Ok, there is so much information on this forum which is both a good and bad thing. But now, thanks to your guidance I'm starting to see the wood through the trees and recognise that what i have is a MoneyClaim via MCOL. 
Step 1: Completing the AOS next Friday (18th) which is eight days after the issue date. Although the named defendant is not correct. I will pursue as the registered keeper.
Step 2: Draft a defence. Which i will start now.
Step 3: Follow the 12 steps of defence. 

The numbering isn't quite correct, but here is part of the draft defence, excluding the additional points that follow the main argument. I'm realising that this is quite a psychological game, sometimes i feel i should just pay and other times i'm like this is so unfair, and predatory, it's only correct and within my right to fight it.

Defence

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.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authorities:

3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage:

Link to the two authorities: Chan_Akande [do I leave this in?]

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant @] was the registered keeper and driver.

 

6.  The claims made by the claimant in the POC are denied by the defendant.

 

(i)            The Defendant is a resident at [insert full address], a development which includes designated residential parking and shared access areas.

(ii)           On the morning of 04/10/2022, the Defendant returned from a night shift with the Metropolitan Police and discovered that their allocated residential parking bay was occupied by a third party, believed to be a parent making a temporary stop for a school drop-off.

(iii)         With no immediate alternative available within the allocated bays and being in urgent need of rest after a night shift, the Defendant temporarily parked their vehicle in a location situated on the boundary of the development. This location had been in consistent use by residents and visitors for over three years, without markings or signage indicating any restriction or prohibition.

(iv)         Crucially, the vehicle was parked on the residential side of the boundary, where signage clearly indicates that resident parking is permitted. The opposite side of the boundary is controlled by a different private parking operator—the Claimant—and it appears that the Claimant issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in error.

(v)           The PCN was issued at around 08:08 with the vague reason “parked within a restricted area.” The Defendant asserts this is unjustified for the following reasons:

a.     There are no road markings or visible lines to indicate a restricted zone at the location in question.

b.     There are no visible signs indicating that parking is prohibited on the side where the Defendant's vehicle was situated.

c.      The Claimant has failed to delineate its jurisdiction or provide any signage indicating the boundary between the two parking control areas.

d.     The Defendant, as a resident, had a legitimate expectation to park in the area in the absence of any clear and unambiguous restrictions.

(vi)         The Defendant made a timely appeal to Parking Control Management shortly after the PCN was issued. However, no further correspondence, updates, or rejection of the appeal were ever received. No pre-action correspondence compliant with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) was sent to the Defendant.

(vii)        The Defendant first became aware of any escalation of the matter upon receipt of a County Court Claim Form in 2025—over two and a half years after the date of the alleged contravention.

(viii)      The Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the registered keeper liable, nor has the Claimant established who was driving at the time. Further, the Defendant contends that the signage relied upon is ambiguous and inadequate to form a binding contract.

(ix)         The Defendant believes the Claimant is engaged in an abuse of process by attempting to enforce a speculative and unfair charge based on unclear land demarcation and absent signage. The claim fails to meet the standards of clarity, reasonableness, and transparency required by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

1505grandad

"(viii)      The Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the registered keeper liable, nor has the Claimant established who was driving at the time. Further, the Defendant contends that the signage relied upon is ambiguous and inadequate to form a binding contract."

The above is irrelevant in which ever made up name is used because driver is admitted at the start i.e.:-

"However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant @] was the registered keeper and driver."

Have not seen PoC so not sure Chan and Akande cases are relevant.

ChirpyChicken

Woah 
Stop!!!!! do absolutely nothing
It's not in your name and can do you no harm what so ever 
Just let this die out
Nothing will happen at all
@troublemaker22 nothing will happen in this case

Car1980

I think there is some confusion because our poster is being understandably coy.

If your name is Joe Bloggs, which of these names are closest to the name on the claim form?

1. Joe Blogs
2. Joseph Bloggs
3. Brian Bloggs
4. Ian Smith

Omesha

1505grandad said:

"(viii)      The Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the registered keeper liable, nor has the Claimant established who was driving at the time. Further, the Defendant contends that the signage relied upon is ambiguous and inadequate to form a binding contract."

The above is irrelevant in which ever made up name is used because driver is admitted at the start i.e.:-

"However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant @] was the registered keeper and driver."

Have not seen PoC so not sure Chan and Akande cases are relevant.

apologies, i accidentally deleted the POC but have now attached the image to the original post. Let me know if they are relevant. 

Omesha

ChirpyChicken said:

Woah 
Stop!!!!! do absolutely nothing
It's not in your name and can do you no harm what so ever 
Just let this die out
Nothing will happen at all
@troublemaker22 nothing will happen in this case

Car1980 said:

I think there is some confusion because our poster is being understandably coy.

If your name is Joe Bloggs, which of these names are closest to the name on the claim form?

1. Joe Blogs
2. Joseph Bloggs
3. Brian Bloggs
4. Ian Smith

I think I’ve confused things a bit. I submitted the appeal under the name Miss A. Wills, but my actual name is more like Miss Edna Willson. The thing is, the council clearly has the correct registered keeper details, so now I’m worried it could backfire — especially if it escalates and they start sending stuff to my address. The last thing I want is bailiffs turning up asking for “A. Wills,” who doesn’t even exist.

But then again… if that happened, I could just say no one by that name lives here, right?

Still, it’s confusing. If this kind of alias trick does work, why isn’t everyone appealing these scammy tickets using fake names? Surely it would mess with their system?

Curious if anyone's actually tried this and what happened.

What do you think to the defence i wrote

ChirpyChicken

Right your in the clear . 100% no issue 
No one will come .
Forget about this now and ignore any letters!
Don't waste your time submitting a defence its pointless