PRIVATE PARKING SOLUTIONS - SMALL CLAIMS LETTER

hamertime

Hi all, 

I have the attached small claims letter for an alleged parking offence last year, on Regis Road, Kentish Town. To date I just ignored all correspondance regarding it.

I do not remember about the offence particularly as it was a works van and I wasn't driving it at the time, but I am the owner of the business that owns the van, we have one van. I can not currently find any evidence/photos of the alleged offence, as it cant be accessed from PPS's website, but I would imagine they have images of course. Please see attached image of claim letter and also of one of the signs from google maps of the road in question, which is a bit blurred, but seems to point people to thier online terms.

I have read a bit about the parking company in question, on this forum, but wondering should I fight this or not is it worth the energy and time of having to go to court? I'm 50/50 with this at the moment.

Whats peoples opinion if I could and should fight this in court based on my lack of knowledge on the PCN? Thank you in advance, any advice would be gratefully recieved.

[Image redacted by Forum Team for personal information]

Gr1pr

No offence occurred,  just an alleged breach of the parking contract on that private property 

That breach is not pleaded in the. POC,  so use the Gladstones,  Chan & Akande defence 

An invoice was issued. ( not fine or Penalty. ) by Private Parking Solutions 

Of course you should fight it, because even if you lost in court the total figure to pay them is about £70 less

Issue date 2nd December,  so login to your government gateway account and complete the AOS online on MCOL ASAP,  as described in the newbies sticky thread in announcements

Report your image for deletion due the VRM details and password on show 

Micky2022

hamertime said:

I have read a bit about the parking company in question, on this forum, but wondering should I fight this or not is it worth the energy and time of having to go to court? I'm 50/50 with this at the moment.

Whats peoples opinion if I could and should fight this in court based on my lack of knowledge on the PCN? Thank you in advance, any advice would be gratefully recieved.

You do not need others’ opinions to tip a 50/50 decision. You did not arrive here by chance; something prompted you to research and find this forum, and that instinct is sufficient to guide your decision and motivate you to pursue it fully.

Furthermore, having indicated that you have read about the parking company on this forum, you will have seen that it is typically individuals seeking guidance due to limited knowledge who come here for support. It would be unlikely for an expert to do so.

Car1980

A Letter Before Claim or an actual Court Claim?

hamertime

Sorry, looks like I didn't redact all the info from the claim letter now reattached to original post.

hamertime

Car1980 said:

A Letter Before Claim or an actual Court Claim?

Claim letter, now attached.

hamertime

Gr1pr said:

No offence occurred,  just an alleged breach of the parking contract on that private property 

That breach is not pleaded in the. POC,  so use the Gladstones,  Chan & Akande defence 

An invoice was issued. ( not fine or Penalty. ) by Private Parking Solutions 

Of course you should fight it, because even if you lost in court the total figure to pay them is about £70 less

Issue date 2nd December,  so login to your government gateway account and complete the AOS online on MCOL ASAP,  as described in the newbies sticky thread in announcements

Report your image for deletion due the VRM details and password on show 

Thank you AOS now completed and redacted letter attached.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 02/12/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 07/12/25 and before or on 21/12/25 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 05/01/26

hamertime

So should I send my defence on MCOL i.e. dispute the whole claim (continue defence) option?

Also am I on the right track with sending the below as my defence?

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(1)(a)
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 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(1)(a), particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity. The Defendant refers specifically to the persuasive appellate cases:- Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023), Luton County Court, HHJ Murch, ref: E7GM9W44- CPMS Ltd v Akande (2024), Manchester County Court, HHJ Evans, ref: K0DP5J30 In both cases, the claim was struck out due to identical failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
5. The Defendant invites the Court to strike out this claim of its own initiative. The Defendant relies on the judicial reasoning set out in Chan and Akande, as well as other County Court cases involving identical failures to adequately comply with CPR 16.4. In those cases, 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. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made: Draft OrderOf 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.

Thanks again in advance.

Coupon-mad

No.

Use the Gladstones one linked in the Template Defence thread.

hamertime

Thank you, I am thinking the below is appropriate?

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(1)(a).

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(1)(a), particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity. The Defendant refers specifically to the persuasive appellate cases:
- Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023), Luton County Court, HHJ Murch, ref: E7GM9W44
- CPMS Ltd v Akande (2024), Manchester County Court, HHJ Evans, ref: K0DP5J30
In both cases, the claim was struck out due to identical failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).

5. The Defendant invites the Court to strike out this claim of its own initiative. The Defendant relies on the judicial reasoning set out in Chan and Akande, as well as other County Court cases involving identical failures to adequately comply with CPR 16.4. In those cases, 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. 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.