NB:Final Defence check before filing - CEL in-house claim, signage + Chan/Akande

21ko_19

Hi all,

Following up on my earlier thread — thank you to those who pointed me to CEL in-house claim and Chan/Akande template.

I've now drafted my defence combining the Chan/Akande argument with a signage defence (supported by my own photos and google street view imagery). Before I file I'd really appreciate a final sanity check on the wording below:-

The Defendant was the driver of vehicle registration [REG] on 30 January 2025, and does not dispute being present at the car park on that date.

With regards to the Particulars of Claim 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 Particulars of Claim fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On 15 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: while the Particulars of Claim state a date and time in/out, they fail to identify which specific term of the alleged contract was breached (e.g. failure to pay tariff, exceeding a free period, parking without a permit, or otherwise). 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 Particulars of Claim (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On 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."

Further and in the alternative, the Defendant submits that no contract was formed between the parties, as the terms and conditions relied upon by the Claimant were not adequately brought to the Defendant's attention prior to or at the point of entering the car park. The Defendant attended the car park on 30 January 2025 during the hours of darkness. Photographic evidence taken by the Defendant at a corresponding time of year and in similar low-light conditions demonstrates that the primary signage was significantly obscured from a driver's line of sight by mature trees positioned directly in the line of approach along Greenwich High Road. This is corroborated by Google Street View imagery (captured October 2024), which independently confirms the same obstruction from a driver's vantage point. As the signage was not reasonably legible or prominent at the point of entry, the Defendant could not have read or agreed to the terms allegedly breached, and no contract incorporating those terms was therefore validly formed.

The sum claimed (£272.77) exceeds the £170.00 parking charge stated in the Particulars of Claim. The additional £102.77 is not particularised, and the Defendant disputes that these costs are legitimately recoverable, particularly as the Claimant has brought this claim in-house and has not incurred external legal representation costs of the kind these charges purport to reflect.

For the reasons set out above, the Defendant denies liability in full and invites the Court to strike out and/or dismiss the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4, alternatively to dismiss the claim following consideration of the evidence at any hearing.

Questions

• Does the wording in point 2 (Chan/Akande) hold up given the POC does include date/time, just not the specific breach?
• Is point 4 (disputing the added £102.77) likely to help, or is it unnecessary padding?
• Any issues with how I've worded the signage argument in point 3?

Many thanks

Gr1pr

PPlease keep to the original thread from 9th June