Parking ticket- Euro Parking

Neo14 · 11 May at 10:25AM

Subject: Euro Parking Services v [Me] – Old claim struck out, new POC filed. Defence deadline 20 May. Need urgent guidance.

Hi MSE experts,

I need urgent help please. I have been defending a private parking claim from Euro Parking Services Limited (solicitors: Gladstones).

Brief history:

Original claim issued August 2025 via CNBC. Particulars of Claim were vague (only said "Stack Shack", no breach details, no times).

I filed a defence citing CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande – defective POC.

Court struck out the claim on 30 March 2026 but gave the claimant permission to re-submit with detailed POC by a deadline.

The claimant has now submitted amended/new Particulars of Claim the day before the deadline.

My deadline to file a substitute defence is 20 May 2026.

What I need guidance on:

How should I approach my updated defence?

What are the key points to challenge in the new POC?

Are there any common defences still available to me now that they have added more detail?

Any help would be massively appreciated as I am up against the 20 May deadline.

Thank you.

Court struck off notice 1.jpg

court struck off notice 2.jpg

Coupon-mad · 11 May at 6:15PM

You need to post all that instead in your existing thread about this claim, otherwise we have zero context!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6637641/advice-needed-private-parking-ticket-mediation-appointment-euro-parking-gladstones-solicitors

I can see from that thread that you didn't use the template defence, so you can just use that and put in your own para 3 (facts and response to their new POC).

The correct way to amend a defence is to put the original defence in a word doc and cross it out in red then put the new defence immediately underneath, fully in red and finally, adding the statement of truth and electronic signature & date.

Neo14 · 12 May at 10:32AM

Thanks alot Coupon-mad

the context is as follows- i received this parking ticket

parking ticket for website.jpg

I completed AOS and submitted my defence as follows:

"

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.
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).
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.

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).

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:

The claim is struck out.
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. "

Court received ny defence and defence was sent to the claimant.

Then received email from the solicitor

"Dear ..............

We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of the Claimant’s intention to proceed with the Claim.

Please find enclosed a copy of the Claimant’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which has also been filed with the Court.

You will note the Claimant has elected to mediate in an attempt to settle this matter amicably, without the need for further Court intervention. Should you agree to mediation, please inform the Court who will contact both parties to arrange a mediation appointment.

Yours sincerely

~~Skye~~

Legal Assistant

Glad... Solicitors Limited " They have also sent a filled N180 form attached. Claimant N-180 as below:

Claimant N-180.jpeg

then I submitted defendant N-180

Defendent N-180.jpeg

also I objecetd to claimant N-180

"

County Court Business Centre (CNBC)
Claim no.: [XXXXXXX]
Parties: [Claimant] v [Defendant]

OBJECTION TO CLAIMANT’S N180 DIRECTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE (DEFECTIVE SIGNATURE & AUTHORISATION)

I object to the Claimant’s purported filing of Form N180, which is “signed” only as “Gladstones Solicitors Ltd” with no identified individual signatory.

Signature defect (PD 5A)

Form N180 requires a valid signature by the party or an identified legal representative. Practice Direction 5A requires documents to be signed where indicated by the person responsible; where that person acts as a member/employee of a firm, the firm’s name may be added, but a firm name alone is not a signature. The absence of an identified individual undermines accountability and is procedurally defective.

Conduct of litigation (Legal Services Act 2007)

Signing and filing an N180 is a step in the “conduct of litigation” within s.12 and Schedule 2 paragraph 4 of the Legal Services Act 2007. Only the party, an authorised person, or an exempt person under Schedule 3 may carry out reserved legal activities.

Mazur

authority

The High Court in

Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

[2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) (16 September 2025) confirmed that employees who are not themselves authorised (and not within a Schedule 3 exemption) cannot conduct litigation, even if supervised. The individual who signs must personally be authorised (or exempt).

Potential statutory non-compliance

If the person who completed/signed the N180 is not authorised or exempt, carrying on a reserved legal activity may contravene s.14 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

Directions sought

A) That the Claimant be directed within 7 days to re-file and serve a properly signed N180 which:

(i) identifies the individual signatory by name and status/position; and

(ii) confirms that the signatory is authorised (or states the relied-upon Schedule 3 exemption) to conduct litigation.

B) That until compliance, the current N180 be treated as defective and disregarded for case-management purposes, with any further sanction at the Court’s discretion in the event of non-compliance.

Service

These documents are served on the Claimant’s solicitors by copy of this email.

Signed:

[Date] "

Then there was mediation appointment- which I attended and which was not success full. My case got transfered to Manchester court. Manchester court struck off the case and asked claiment to re-submit with the detailed version. Claimant submitted the new claim as below

Court struck off notice 1.jpg

court struck off notice 2.jpg

Then claimant submitted a new claim:

and now its my time to update my defence.

This is a breif overview of my case (there are more details to the case but I think I have included all the relevant information).

Coupon-mad · 12 May at 2:23PM

Please reply on your earlier thread. 🙂

Neo14 · 12 May at 3:49PM

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6667773/parking-ticket-euro-parking

i received this parking ticket

parking ticket for website.jpg

I completed AOS and submitted my defence as follows:

"

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.
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).
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.

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).

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:

The claim is struck out.
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. "

Court received ny defence and defence was sent to the claimant.

Then received email from the solicitor

"Dear ..............

We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of the Claimant’s intention to proceed with the Claim.

Please find enclosed a copy of the Claimant’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which has also been filed with the Court.

You will note the Claimant has elected to mediate in an attempt to settle this matter amicably, without the need for further Court intervention. Should you agree to mediation, please inform the Court who will contact both parties to arrange a mediation appointment.

Yours sincerely

Skye

Legal Assistant

Glad... Solicitors Limited " They have also sent a filled N180 form attached. Claimant N-180 as below:

Claimant N-180.jpeg

then I submitted defendant N-180

Defendent N-180.jpeg

also I objecetd to claimant N-180

"

County Court Business Centre (CNBC) Claim no.: [XXXXXXX] Parties: [Claimant] v [Defendant]
OBJECTION TO CLAIMANT’S N180 DIRECTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE (DEFECTIVE SIGNATURE & AUTHORISATION)
I object to the Claimant’s purported filing of Form N180, which is “signed” only as “Gladstones Solicitors Ltd” with no identified individual signatory.
Signature defect (PD 5A)
Form N180 requires a valid signature by the party or an identified legal representative. Practice Direction 5A requires documents to be signed where indicated by the person responsible; where that person acts as a member/employee of a firm, the firm’s name may be added, but a firm name alone is not a signature. The absence of an identified individual undermines accountability and is procedurally defective.
Conduct of litigation (Legal Services Act 2007)
Signing and filing an N180 is a step in the “conduct of litigation” within s.12 and Schedule 2 paragraph 4 of the Legal Services Act 2007. Only the party, an authorised person, or an exempt person under Schedule 3 may carry out reserved legal activities.
Mazur

authority
The High Court in

Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

[2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) (16 September 2025) confirmed that employees who are not themselves authorised (and not within a Schedule 3 exemption) cannot conduct litigation, even if supervised. The individual who signs must personally be authorised (or exempt).
Potential statutory non-compliance
If the person who completed/signed the N180 is not authorised or exempt, carrying on a reserved legal activity may contravene s.14 of the Legal Services Act 2007.
Directions sought
A) That the Claimant be directed within 7 days to re-file and serve a properly signed N180 which:
(i) identifies the individual signatory by name and status/position; and
(ii) confirms that the signatory is authorised (or states the relied-upon Schedule 3 exemption) to conduct litigation.
B) That until compliance, the current N180 be treated as defective and disregarded for case-management purposes, with any further sanction at the Court’s discretion in the event of non-compliance.
Service
These documents are served on the Claimant’s solicitors by copy of this email. Signed: [Date] "

Then there was mediation appointment- which I attended and which was not success full. My case got transfered to Manchester court. Manchester court struck off the case and asked claiment to re-submit with the detailed version. Claimant submitted the new claim as below

Court struck off notice 1.jpg

court struck off notice 2.jpg

Then claimant submitted a new claim:

and now its my time to update my defence.

This is a breif overview of my case (there are more details to the case but I think I have included all the relevant information).

Neo14 · 12 May at 3:51PM

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81995700#Comment_81995700

Thanks replied on my earlier post.

Neo14 · 13 May at 8:33PM

Please see my substitue defence- would appreciate some comments

"

"SUBSTITUTE DEFENCE

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 Defendant acknowledges receipt of the amended Particulars of Claim purportedly served pursuant to the Order dated 11 March 2026. However, the Defendant submits that the Claimant has failed to comply with the terms and requirements of that Order.

The Order expressly directed the Claimant to identify “whether the claim is brought under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”. The amended Particulars of Claim fail to do so with the requisite certainty or specificity.

In particular:

(a) the amended Particulars of Claim state that the claim is brought pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) “where applicable”, but fail to state whether POFA is in fact applicable and relied upon in this claim;

(b) the amended Particulars of Claim continue to plead alternative and inconsistent causes of action by further stating at paragraph 5.2 that “where POFA is not relied upon”, the Claimant will instead seek to establish liability on an alternative basis;

(c) the Claimant has therefore failed to identify clearly and unequivocally whether the Defendant is pursued as driver, keeper pursuant to POFA, or both;

(d) the amended Particulars of Claim continue to advance speculative and contradictory alternatives without properly pleading the legal basis upon which the Claimant seeks to recover the alleged debt.

Accordingly, the Defendant submits that the Claimant has failed to comply with the Court’s Order and continues to fail adequately to particularise the basis of the claim with sufficient clarity and precision. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to strike out the claim.

Further and in the alternative, if the Court is not minded to strike out the claim, the Defendant responds to the amended Particulars of Claim as follows.

The Defendant denies that any enforceable contractual liability arose between the Claimant and the Defendant.

The Defendant is unable fully to understand the contractual basis of the claim because:

(a) the Claimant has failed to provide strict proof that the signage relied upon was sufficiently prominent, legible, illuminated (if applicable), and capable of binding a reasonable motorist;

(b) the Claimant has failed to provide strict proof that the terms and conditions relied upon were adequately brought to the attention of drivers prior to any alleged contract being formed;

(c) the Claimant has failed to provide strict proof regarding the precise location, positioning, prominence, wording, and visibility of the signage relied upon at the material time;

(d) the Claimant has failed to provide strict proof that the keypad registration system referred to in the amended Particulars of Claim was operational, accessible, properly maintained, clearly explained to patrons, and functioning correctly at the material time.

The Defendant denies that the Claimant has sufficiently proven the identity of the driver and the Claimant is put to strict proof thereof.

To the extent that the Claimant seeks to rely upon Schedule 4 of POFA, the Defendant denies that the Claimant has complied with the mandatory statutory requirements necessary to establish keeper liability. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance with each and every requirement of Schedule 4 of POFA.

Further and in the alternative, if POFA is not relied upon, the Claimant is required to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the identity of the driver. Mere keeper status does not create any lawful presumption of driver liability.

The Defendant further denies that the additional sum of £60, described variously as “contractual costs”, “debt recovery costs” or similar, is recoverable.

The Defendant avers that the additional £60 constitutes an attempt at double recovery and is contrary to established authority and the indemnity principle. The Claimant is put to strict proof that such sum was genuinely incurred, contractually agreed, and lawfully recoverable.

The Defendant further avers that the additional charges claimed exceed the level of parking charge considered by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and that no legitimate interest or commercial justification has been established for the enhanced sum now claimed.

The Defendant denies that the contractual terms relied upon were fair, transparent, or sufficiently prominent so as to satisfy the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The Defendant notes that the original claim was previously found by the Court not to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), resulting in the original Particulars of Claim being struck out unless amended. The Defendant maintains that the amended pleading remains materially deficient for the reasons set out above.

The Defendant respectfully reserves the right to amend, supplement, or expand upon this Defence should further documents, evidence, or information be disclosed by the Claimant."

Coupon-mad · 13 May at 10:51PM

Please reply on your earlier thread. or ask for them to be merged by hitting 'report' on your post.

We can't have two threads about the same case and you won't get replies as people won't look at two threads.

Neo14 · 14 May at 11:47PM

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81995826#Comment_81995826