UKCPS PoFA received - behind Leeds Railway station

Coupon-mad

Breach alleged: no stopping. So he responds to that in para 3 of the Template Defence.

Fumbles

Hi all,

This is my paragraph 3 to answer the POC. Is it enough but not too much? The bold part is my addition to the text already present in the template.

3. With regards to the POC in question, 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. 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'." The alleged breach is stated in the POC as: “No stopping”. This is prohibitive; therefore, no contract was offered to the driver for them to be in breach of. For a contract to be formed under Contract Law, there must be an offer, an acceptance, and consideration (something of value exchanged). The driver cannot accept a contract that does not exist. Furthermore, in the POC the land in question is stated as “Leeds City Station Leeds LS1 4DY”. This is a large transport hub comprising multiple areas including station buildings, drop-off zones, and yellow-lined roads. That description does not identify the relevant land with sufficient clarity to meet the requirements of POFA. In addition, at the time of the alleged offense, POFA was not applicable as the land was governed by Railway Byelaws until 26th December 2025.

I could go into:

• There is no "period of parking" on the NtK therefore not POFA para 9(2)(a) compliant.
• Operator relies on single photograph with "time of issue" stated as "23:50" on NtK.
• Inadequate signage on the road in question - small, unlit, blue signs state "no stopping" on opposite side of road attached to the multistorey car park run by UKCPS.
• Signage on multistorey car park state "terms and conditions apply - see internal signage for details". Driver was not inside car park so can't be expected to know that the signs were applicable to the road in front of it.

Do I need to? Or should I make notes of these in case he ends up in court for him to use as defence in there?

Thank you in advance.

Coupon-mad

You can't use Chan & Akande. That's just for cases with no specified breach,

Fumbles

3. With regards to the POC in question, a recent persuasive appeal judgments in Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. The appeal judgment 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'." The alleged breach in this case is stated in the POC as: “No stopping”. This is prohibitive; therefore, no contract was offered to the driver for them to be in breach of. For a contract to be formed under Contract Law, there must be an offer, an acceptance, and consideration (something of value exchanged). The driver cannot accept a contract that does not exist. Furthermore, in the POC the land in question is stated as “Leeds City Station Leeds LS1 4DY”. This is a large transport hub comprising multiple areas including station buildings, drop-off zones, and yellow-lined roads. That description does not identify the relevant land with sufficient clarity to meet the requirements of POFA. In addition, at the time of the alleged offense, POFA was not applicable as the land was governed by Railway Byelaws until 26th December 2025.

Is this any better? I think I removed the correct Chan references including CPR 16.4(1)(e).

Coupon-mad

No, re-read my reply above.

And remove 'in question' (I don't know who started that one but the phrase is silly).

Fumbles

Apologies, I only spotted reference to Chan in your previous reply and in my haste missed the Akande part.

I'm really struggling with this now, and starting to panic that I've done the wrong thing. All other posts I'm reading seem to have had no breach specified in POC so are defending on that basis.

When I first started this thread, I was told that the NtK was not POFA compliant, which is what I thought the defence would be making the whole 'incident' a non-starter. However, now the defence is to respond to the breach given in POC which is "no stopping"?

The arguments I can think of using are:

• NtK failed to specify "period of parking" - not POFA compliant
• NtK failed to provide evidence of signage in the place at the material time
• Leeds Train Station was governed by Railyway Byelaws at the time of the alleged incident
• Breach is "no stopping" which is prohibitive and means a contract cannot be formed under Contract Law

Are any of these useful at all? I feel like I'm fumbling around in the dark at this point.

Gr1pr

His paragraph 2 should end with, but not the driver

His paragraph 3 is based upon no transfer of liability from the driver to the keeper, dropping off or picking up is not parking, refuting the POC , plus you cannot contract to do that which is forbidden

An NTK never shows signage, so irrelevant at this stage

Perhaps study a few Airport claims

Fumbles

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered Keeper, but not the driver when the alleged incident occurred. The Keeper declines to name the driver and is under no legal obligation to do so.

3. The alleged breach in this case is stated in the POC as: “No stopping”. This is prohibitive; therefore, no contract was offered to the driver for them to be in breach of. For a contract to be formed under Contract Law, there must be an offer, an acceptance, and consideration (something of value exchanged). The driver cannot accept a contract that does not exist. Furthermore, in the POC the land is stated as “Leeds City Station Leeds LS1 4DY”. This is a large transport hub comprising multiple areas including station buildings, drop-off zones, and yellow-lined roads. That description does not identify the relevant land with sufficient clarity to meet the requirements of POFA. In addition, at the time of the alleged offense, POFA was not applicable; The land was governed by Railway Byelaws until 26th December 2025 and was therefore excluded from the definition of ‘relevant land’ in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to POFA. As a result, the Claimant cannot rely on POFA to transfer liability to the registered Keeper in this case. They can only pursue the driver, whose identity has not been disclosed. There can be no Keeper liability in this case.

Any better? Do I need to reference any cases like VCS vs Edward or Excel vs Smith?

Am I editing any of the other paragraphs too? I read the template defence but thought only para 2 and 3 were to be edited.

Gr1pr

Only paragraphs 2 & 3, leaving the rest as in the template

Change the word offence to breach , or contravention

For the first POFA, add 2012 , so POFA2012

Then wait for other comments

Coupon-mad

You can keep cases like Smith and Edward for WS stage, where you can adapt the WS by @JackR1

Remove this as it isn't relevant land so the sentence doesn't make sense:

"That description does not identify the relevant land with sufficient clarity to meet the requirements of POFA."

(offence is spelt wrong but change it to alleged breach).