Court Claim Letter - Here we go again - Acknowledgement of Service

Bachelorplace

Hello Legends...and Coup 

I have ignored everything, and truly cannot remember my defence - other than I either over stayed by 20 minutes, or I automatically parked in a car park 20 yards away and entered the incorrect one in the Pay App. 

I assume step one is:

Acknowledgement of Claim

And (1) I Intend to defend all of this claim. 

My question is: Is it now too late to ask for SAR - as I cannot recall anything, to have them reveal their evidence right? 

Gr1pr

Post the issue date from the claim form 

Do not email a SAR at this stage,  ignorance is bliss 

Yes, dispute all of it, defend in full  ( evidence comes at the WS stage in several months time   )

Your defence rebuts the POC,  so copy and adapt the paragraphs 2 & 3 from any recent thread within the last 6 weeks,  posting your draft paragraphs below  ( do not post the rest of the template,  but you will be using all of it at submission time   )

Ps, your password is unredacted 

Gr1pr

So you appear to be using the alternative Chan & Akande defence template,  so let's see your paragraphs 6 & 7 too

Your AOS is done online,  on MCOL,  following the advice in the Dropbox link in the newbies sticky thread in announcements,  do that and only that for now 

Your defence pdf will be emailed in a few weeks time 

Coupon-mad

You need to show us the claim form.

If it's Gladstones or Moorside Legal, @troublemaker22 will assist you free of charge. He's a solicitor (someone who I know personally) who is doing strike out applications pro bono for those cases. No fees (not even the court fee to pay). All raising money for charity.

troublemaker22

Bachelorplace, I've sent you a DM

Bachelorplace

What lovely people we should all have cigars - 

Defence to AOS

Preliminary Matter: Application to Strike Out the Claim

1. The Particulars of Claim (POC) are vague, incoherent, and appear to be a generic cut-and-paste template. They fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4, and Practice Directions 16PD3 and 16PD7, as they do not state all facts necessary to disclose a complete cause of action.

2. The Defendant invites the Court to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4, on the basis that it discloses no reasonable grounds and is an abuse of process.

3. The Defendant relies on two persuasive appeal decisions where similar claims were struck out due to inadequate pleadings:

   • Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (15 August 2023, HHJ Murch), where the court found the POC insufficient to establish a cause of action.

   • Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande (HHJ Evans), confirming the requirement for clear and complete particulars.

4. The Defendant reserves the right to amend or supplement this Defence should further particulars be served.

---

Substantive Defence

1. The Defendant denies that the elements necessary to establish liability, including the existence of a valid contract or a breach thereof, have been met.

2. The charge imposed is, in all the circumstances, a penalty and not enforceable. It is fully distinguished from the decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which does not apply on the facts of this case.

3. The alleged ‘core debt’ cannot exceed £100—the statutory and industry cap for private parking charges.

4. It is denied that any ‘Debt Recovery Costs’ or damages were incurred or paid by the Claimant. No evidence has been provided, and such charges are false additions intended to inflate the claim artificially.

5. This claim is unfair and exaggerated. The Claimant routinely adds a fixed sum per PCN, despite clear Government intent to ban such practices under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, due to recognised ‘market failure’.

6. The claim is entirely denied. No sum is due in debt or damages.

Enclosing the form thing. 

KeithP

Bachelorplace said:

Date of issues 28 May 2025. 

With a Claim Issue Date of 28th May, you have until Monday 16th June 2025 to file an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS'), but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AOS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AOS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 30th June 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the AOS guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an AOS, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

1505grandad

I don't think the Chan and Akande cases are relevant to your PoC.

Coupon-mad

No, and a strike out was only suggested if it's Gladstones or Moorside Legal, but it isn't.

Just do the usual Template Defence.

Bachelorplace

Sorry to frustrate -

Para 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 two persuasive Appeal judgments — by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester — supporting striking out claims in these exact circumstances, namely poorly pleaded private parking claims with boilerplate wording. Bulk litigators, such as this Claimant, should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with Practice Directions.
para 3
In Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) (15 August 2023), HHJ Murch held that the particulars of the claim did not set out the conduct amounting to the alleged breach, preventing the claimant from bringing a valid breach of contract claim. The same applies here, and the Defendant trusts the Court should strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4.

6.
The Defendant likely visited this or the adjacent car park (within 10–20 yards of each other). The Defendant cannot recall if an alleged overstay occurred but affirms payment is always made, either via machine or app. Previous occasions showed confusion with app-based payment location selection.
7. 
The Defendant can demonstrate a history and experienced with private car parks and would never knowingly park without paying. It is reasonably understood payment is a condition of parking, and the Defendant takes care to comply.
8. On previous occasions, there has been confusion when paying through the app, as it is not always clear which car park location is being selected. This confusion could be mitigated by the inclusion of clear and prominent app logos or other identifiers on the signage and payment interfaces, helping drivers easily distinguish the correct location to pay for. The Defendant avers that the absence of such distinguishing features increases the risk of inadvertent error despite genuine attempts to comply.
9.The claimant refers to an alleged incident from 2023, which is now approximately 24 months prior to the date of this defence (28 May 2025). In the absence of significant evidence, it is unreasonable to expect the defendant to recall the specific details of any transaction. No such evidence has been presented to the defendant to support the claim.

Coupon-mad

No you are still using Chan and Akande. Use the ordinary template defence, with your facts as paragraph 3.