Holiday Inn Express T5 Heathrow - County Court - Driver identified

fivestarsamz

Hello all, here to help another colleague of mine who is a private hire driver for a PCN he received from ParkingEye.

Background:

He had passengers picked up from central London, who had a stop at the Holiday Inn Express T5 Heathrow hotel to drop their luggage, and then was going to continue their journey elsewhere. It took longer than expected at the hotel, so the driver asked the receptionist if they needed to register the VRM or anything, to which they said no, as they were dropping off.

He then got an NtK where he appealed, and identified himself as the driver.

Now he has received a County Court Claim regarding this.

Issue date: 14/08/2026

AOS submitted: 26/08/2026

I have written up a defence. If someone can help me with points 2 and 3, is okay or if I should add anything more or less.

2. The allegation is denied and liability for the sum claimed is denied. The Defendant was the driver of the vehicle and was operating it as a licensed private hire vehicle. The Defendant has limited recollection of the events due to the passage of time, but recalls that the vehicle attended the site for the purpose of dropping off passengers and their luggage. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial.

3. On the material date, the Defendant's passengers had been collected from central London and required a stop at the Holiday Inn Express London Heathrow T5 to unload their luggage before continuing their journey elsewhere. The unloading and arrangements at the hotel took longer than anticipated. The Defendant specifically asked the hotel receptionist whether the vehicle registration needed to be registered or whether any parking procedure needed to be followed. The Defendant was expressly informed that no registration was required because he was dropping off passengers. The Defendant relied upon that information and remained at the premises solely in connection with the passengers' drop-off. It is denied that the Defendant knowingly breached the displayed terms and conditions. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the specific contractual term allegedly breached, that the term was sufficiently prominent and applicable to these circumstances, and that the circumstances amounted to the alleged breach.

POC:

Appeal submitted:

Coupon-mad

Remove this bit as the driver can recall it!

"The Defendant has limited recollection of the events due to the passage of time, but recalls that the vehicle attended the site for the purpose of dropping off passengers and their luggage. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial."

The case will be discontinued in the New Year so I suggest that YOU keep tabs on-the progress and take the mediation phone call for the Defendant to stop them offering money.

We all know how it will end, so tell him to follow the 8 steps to the letter and not to move house without telling DCB Legal and the court.

And tell him we'll need the NoD photo in the end please, for @Umkomaas' thread.

1505grandad

just checking - no breach pleaded so is Chan and Akande relevant?

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 14/08/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 16/09/26

As @1505grandad writes, yes, you can use Chan & Akande

fivestarsamz

Okay thank you. Should I just use Chen/Akande for my point 3 or is it better to keep my point 3, and add another point 4 for chan akande like this?

2. The allegation is denied and liability for the sum claimed is denied. The Defendant was the driver of the vehicle and was operating it as a licensed private hire vehicle. The Defendant recalls that the vehicle attended the site for the purpose of dropping off passengers and their luggage.

3. On the material date, the Defendant's passengers had been collected from central London and required a stop at the Holiday Inn Express London Heathrow T5 to unload their luggage before continuing their journey elsewhere. The unloading and arrangements at the hotel took longer than anticipated. The Defendant specifically asked the hotel receptionist whether the vehicle registration needed to be registered or whether any parking procedure needed to be followed. The Defendant was expressly informed that no registration was required because he was dropping off passengers. The Defendant relied upon that information and remained at the premises solely in connection with the passengers' drop-off. It is denied that the Defendant knowingly breached the displayed terms and conditions. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the specific contractual term allegedly breached, that the term was sufficiently prominent and applicable to these circumstances, and that the circumstances amounted to the alleged breach.

4. 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'."

Coupon-mad

I think use both. It's important to have your para 3 in your case.

You can remove para 10 to make it fit.