Court claim form - what now?

chyvan

Hi, I've followed advice on threads here in my responses to Gladstones, but now have received a claim form from court business centre - gone up to £269.57 now! Please advise how to respond! Thanks!

Coupon-mad

Read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread, and tell us the date of the claim & which PPC.

chyvan

Parking date 13/05/16
Issue date of recent claim letter: 22/02/19 (Been away a couple of days, just got back)
UKCPM via ANPR
Will look again at newbie thread now.
Thanks.

KeithP

chyvan wrote: »

Issue date of recent claim letter: 22/02/19.

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd February, you have until Wednesday 13th March to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 27th March 2019 to file your Defence.

That's a month away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

chyvan

I'd appreciate some feedback on my attempted Defence, please! I've looked at some pertinent examples and tried to cobble something together from those, but not convinced! Many thanks in advance!
My Defence - redacted

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

Background - the driver was an authorised patron of the onsite business

2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at XXXX pub car park on 13/05/16.

2.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

3. The allegation appears to based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper parking “in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (‘the Contract’)” or of the driver not being a patron of the XXXX pub and its facilities.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. According to the sparse signs in this car park, it now transpires that to avoid a Parking Charge, visitors were expected to know to inform XXXX pub staff of their Vehicle Registration Number (VRN). This was far from clearly signed and staff of the pub did not make customers aware of this requirement.

5.1. Prior to the Defendant's visit, UKCPM had recently placed their signage within the car park creating new terms and conditions for motorists. Their Trade Body Code of Practice states at 18.11: ''Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.''

5.2. It is contended that the Claimant failed to alert regular local visitors to an onerous change and unexpected obligation to inform staff that they had parked, or risk £100 penalty. The Claimant is put to strict proof, with the bar being set by Denning LJ in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] in the well-known 'Red Hand Rule' where hidden/unknown terms were held to be unenforceable: ''Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink...with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.''

Signage missing and unclear

6.1. The Claimant has supplied, at the request of the Defendant, an image purporting to show locations of signs in the XXXX car park, however this is both inaccurate with the current reality, and does not reflect the location of signage at the time of the alleged breach, nor the content of these signs. It also does not indicate which signs have been added or changed since May 2016.

6.2. The Defendant took photographs of UKCPM signage and locations (as well as absences) when the Letter Before Court was received from the Claimant’s solicitors.

6.3. It should be noted that Pay & Display signs are present at the left side of the car park entrance, furthest from the driver, facing towards the road and not easily seen when entering the car park and concentrating on manoeuvring round pedestrians on the road (there is no pavement there) and traffic, including vehicles exiting the car park. Pedestrians exiting the car park and walking along the narrow road are usually headed towards the beach, carrying the usual piles of surfboards, chairs and picnic bags, so a significant visual distraction when manoeuvring with care around them.

6.4. The plan of signs at the XXXX car park provided by the Claimant’s solicitors is not an accurate representation of the location, direction or wording of the signs in this car park in May 2016. Photographic evidence from the Defendant clearly shows there are no signs anywhere in the vicinity of the disabled parking space.

6.5. The Claimant’s ‘plan of the car park signage’ (obviously a screenshot from Google Maps with arbitrary placement of blue dots to indicate claimed location of signs, rather than an actual plan of signage from UKCPM) is undated, so does not clearly relate to the car park signage at the time of the alleged breach, which is what was requested several times by the Defendant.

6.6. Similarly, the example of Pay & Display signage provided by the Claimant is not actually a real sign, nor does it contain the same wording as the sign the Defendant has since seen displayed in the car park. The image sent by the Claimant is simply a generic Pay & Display sign template, with text (not even worded similarly to the existing signs) referring to the XXXX pub added in a deliberate attempt to mislead.

6.7. Recent photos of car park signage taken by the Defendant show signs by Total Parking Solutions, who now seem to manage this car park rather than UKCPM. The content of these signs differs markedly from those at the time of the alleged breach, indicating that the signs at the time were inadequate. Despite repeated requests, the Defendant has not been provided with clear evidence showing signage and locations of signs at the time of the alleged breach.

7. The XXXX pub car park had only recently become a Pay & Display, and the change was not realised by the driver. The Defendant understood that the car park is for patrons only, and as they were visiting the adjacent takeaway fish & chip shop, owned and run by XXX pub, who also owns the car park, they were confident they retained the usual right to use the car park for the duration of their visit.

8. The Defendant’s car was parked in the disabled space by the vehicle entrance / exit, with blue badge showing, to enable the disabled occupant to leave through the vehicle exit and cross the road to the Fish & Chip shop, as this route is the most direct. A map of sign locations at the time would show that there were no Pay & Display signs present at the vehicle exit facing into the car park, to alert the Defendant and disabled occupant to the fact the car park now required payment for the few minutes whilst fish and chips were ordered, cooked and collected.

8.1. There are no signs visible anywhere near the disabled parking spaces, nor between the disabled spaces and the vehicle entrance / exit.

8.2. The 17 minutes shown on the ANPR camera between arrival and departure includes the time to park; for the disabled occupant to exit the car; cross the road; order fish and chips; receive their order; return slowly to the car; and drive out of the car park.

8.3. A sign at the exit of the car park would have been seen by the driver and disabled occupant whilst leaving for the fish and chip shop across the road, and warned them of the need to pay. There is not even a sign there thanking car park users for paying and displaying, as at some car parks.

8.4. Staff in the fish and chip shop, employees of the XXXX pub, did not warn the Defendant and disabled occupant of the car about the need to now pay in the car park, nor offer assistance regarding this.

8.5. The Fish & Chip shop is owned and run by the XXXX pub, who also owns the car park. It now transpires that spending £10 or more in the fish & chip shop (which the occupant of the car did) would have provided entitlement to the same free parking as visiting the pub, although there was no availability of registering details with staff on an ipad at the fish & chip shop as the Defendant has discovered there is now behind the bar. In any case, with limited mobility the disabled occupant would have been found it extremely difficult and painful to travel across to the pub and wait in the crowded bar to register their details for the few minutes it took to order and collect fish and chips.

9. The vehicle exit is the closest to the disabled parking spot, and the easiest and most logical route to exit the car park as a pedestrian from the disabled space, crossing the road to the fish and chip shop. The two pedestrian exits are much more difficult to negotiate with impaired mobility, and at the other end of the car park. One is a narrow path with an uneven surface, leading towards the beach, away from the direction of the pub and fish and chip shop. The other pedestrian exit has narrow gates at both ends, and winds through narrow gaps between close packed tables and benches on a busy patio area. It is entirely unsuitable for people with disabilities to negotiate, especially with impaired mobility.

9.1. Although the ‘evidence’ from the Claimant about signage is almost entirely and deliberately misleading, the map serves a useful purpose in clearly demonstrating the location of the disabled parking space in relation to both the vehicle and pedestrian access routes, showing it is by far an easier route to go directly from the disabled space to the fish & chip shop via the vehicle entrance – and going on to the pub would be more than twice the distance, which would be difficult for a disabled blue badge holder with impaired mobility, even if they had been made aware of this as a requirement for parking, which they were not.

9.2. As already stated, there are no signs present to alert users as they exit the car park, nor machines or signs close to the disabled space, or between the disabled space and the vehicle exit. The Defendant’s photographic evidence contradicts the Claimant’s random dot placement on the Google Map screenshot.

9.3. It feels as if UKCPM are deliberately targeting disabled users of the car park through the positioning of signs and payment machines away from disabled parking and access.

Data Protection concerns

11. The Defendant was an occupant of the car and customer of the fish and chip shop operated by the XXXX pub. However, the Defendant had no idea about any ANPR surveillance and received no letters after the initial 'PCN' a vague document which gave no indication as to what the alleged breach actually was. Insufficient photographic evidence of the terms on signage has been supplied, Despite repeated requests.10. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and of their decision-making in processing the data and the human intervention in deciding to issue a PCN and why, as well as the reasoning behind trying to collect £100 instead of the £1 tariff, if it is their case that this sum went unpaid.

12. Under the GDPR, the Claimant is also put to strict proof regarding the reason for such excessive and intrusive data collection via ANPR surveillance cameras.

12.1. It is one thing to install PDT machines, but quite another to run a hidden ANPR camera data stream alongside the PDT data stream, and then use one against the other, against the rights and interests of thousands of unsuspecting but circumspect visitors to the car park, who are being caught out regularly by this trap.

12.2. Silently collecting VRN data in order to inflate the 'parking charge' from £1 to £100 and write (weeks later) to registered keepers at their own homes - whether they were driving or not - is excessive, untimely and intrusive to registered keeper data subjects.



12.3. The concealed restrictions are misleading and excessive and tip the balance so far against visitors that there is an imbalance in the rights and interests of consumers, which is contrary to the listed Prohibitions in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

12.4. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the existence of a Privacy Impact Assessment, made before ANPR surveillance and enforcement started.

12.5. Further, the Claimant is put to strict proof of regular assessments made in consultation with your clients at this location, to establish that ANPR being used 24/7 is the least data-intrusive method of enforcement. The Claimant must justify the constant ANPR data stream, given that they are collecting irrelevant and distorting 'time of arrival' data on every vehicle, every day, basing their charges on the point of driving in, despite tariff payments being made at a time that is also within their data records.

12.6. Further, and in breach of the DPA, UKCPM has provided no Privacy Notice specifically about an individual's right to subject access. At no point has the keeper been informed of their rights to subject access and how to obtain a SAR, and as such, this was an offence under the DPA at the point of the contract.

12.7. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a new rule coming in under the GDPR (although that recent legislation does have further implications, of course), it is clearly stated in the existing ICO Code of Practice for ANPR and Surveillance Cameras:

''the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations under the DPA.''

''If you are intending to match data together from different systems, you will need to be careful that the information you are collecting is accurate and not excessive. [...] It is possible for data collected by a range of surveillance systems to be integrated into broader 'big data' processing systems operated by organisations. This has implications in terms of profiling, what can be learnt about individuals and how decisions are made about them. The ICO published a report on the data protection implications of big data that covers this issue in further detail.''

''7.6 Privacy notices
It is clear that these and similar devices present more difficult challenges in relation to providing individuals with fair processing information, which is a requirement under the first principle of the DPA. For example, it will be difficult to ensure that an individual is fully informed of this information if the surveillance system is airborne, on a person or, in the case of ANPR, not visible at ground level or more prevalent then it may first appear.''

''One of the main rights that a privacy notice helps deliver is an individual's right of subject access.''

''Once you have followed the guidance in this code and set up the surveillance system, you need to ensure that it continues to comply with the DPA and the code's requirements in practice.
You should:

- tell people how they can make a subject access request, who it should be sent to and what information needs to be supplied with their request;
- give them a copy of this code or details of the ICO website; and
- tell them how to complain about either the operation of the system or failure to comply with the requirements of this code.''

The registered keeper's data was obviously not obtained in accordance with the KADOE or the BPA Code - due to breaching the above ICO Code at/before the contract was made at the machine - and thus, the charge is unrecoverable.

13. Unlike the free car park in Beavis, this pub car park is a site where the Claimant has machines to take payment of tariffs. Clearly there will be UKCPM staff regularly onsite to empty the money from the machines, who could reasonably enforce parking rules with drivers face to face, whilst managing the car park fairly and ensuring that any PDT machine is clear and obvious to drivers and not a hidden 'pitfall or trap'. The ANPR cameras represent disproportionate and excessive data processing, given the nature of this location, and the Claimant's DPO is put to strict proof of its data risk assessment and compliance with the Information Commissioners Office's ANPR surveillance camera Code of Practice.

14. Upon receiving the claim, the only route offered the Defendant was a supposed 'appeal' to UKCPM themselves, but the Defendant knew that no offence or mischief had occurred and honestly believed from initial research, that private parking charges and the appeals systems were unlikely to be fairly weighted in favour of consumers.

14.1. This fact was later confirmed in all readings of the Private Parking Code of Practice Bill, from February 2018 to date, where MPs universally condemned the entire industry as operating 'an outrageous scam' typically relying upon hidden, punitive terms that purposely rely on drivers not seeing an unexpected obligation. Both the British Parking Association ('BPA') Trade Body and indeed, UKCPM themselves were specifically named and shamed more than once in Parliament and the Bill was introduced purely because the industry is out of control, self-regulation has failed, and in many cases any 'appeal' is futile.

No legitimate interest - the penalty rule remains engaged

15. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices in these circumstances, and to pursue payment in the court in their own name. Even if they hold such authority, the Claimant is put to strict proof that this authorisation expressly allows litigation against patrons even when the business in fact supports the Defendant in wanting an unfair charge to be cancelled.

16. Even if the Claimant is able to produce such a landowner contract, it is averred that there can be no legitimate interest arguable by the Claimant in this case. When - all too often at this location - ParkingEye unfairly harvest the data of a registered keeper to charge a genuine patron, any commercial justification in the form of landowner support for such unfair ticketing is de facto absent.

16.1. Further, there was no overstay nor any mischief to deter, nor was there any misuse of a valuable parking space by the Defendant, whose car was parked in good faith, not in contravention nor causing an obstruction, and was certainly not 'unauthorised'. With no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant's claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.

17. In addition, there can be no cause of action in a parking charge case without a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract' (the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 refers). Expecting a driver to somehow realise they need to inform hospitality staff to input their VRN into an unseen keypad, in what the consumer is confident is an unrestricted free car park for patrons with no visible machines of any description, is indisputably a 'concealed pitfall' and cannot be described as a 'relevant obligation'.

18. This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' (the ICO Code). This is both a specific Data Protection and BPA Code of Practice breach. The Supreme Court Judges in Beavis held that a Code of Practice is effectively 'regulation' for this blatantly rogue industry, full compliance with which is both mandatory and binding upon any parking operator.

18.1. The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land. At this location, the Claimant has failed on all counts and the data gathered about patrons of the site is unconscionable and excessive, given the lack of transparency about the risk of a charge for failing to do something that the driver never knew was a requirement.

19. If a parking firm was truly acting in good faith and keeping the interests of consumers at the heart of their thinking, they would concentrate on ensuring firstly, that patrons were informed by staff at the pub and associated facilities of the need to register vehicle details, and secondly, could not miss the fact that, if they did receive an unfair PCN as a genuine customer, they had a right to ask the landowner/Managers to cancel it. Clearly the Claimants interest is purely in misleading and punishing customers and extracting as much money as possible in three figure penalties, given that this is the only way UKCPM make any money.

19.1. The Defendant has noted that the wording of the new signage in this car park has been significantly altered since the alleged breach, clearly indicating the inadequacies of the signs present in May 2016.



Inflation of the parking charge and double recovery - an abuse of process

20. This claim inflates the total charges in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process. It was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters. Thus, there can be no 'costs' to pile on top of any parking charge claim.

21. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. This claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Further, £34.57 in ‘statutory interest’ has been added to the original penalty.

22. In addition to the original penalty, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported legal costs of £50, which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. UKCPM have not expended any such sum in this case, given that they have a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and (shamefully) this firm whose main business is supposed to be parking 'management' as a service provision, files tens of thousands of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per annum. No genuine legal costs arise, per case, and their in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.

23. The added 'legal' cost is in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA, a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent by legally qualified staff on actually preparing the claim and/or the cost of obtaining advice for that specific claim, in a legal capacity.

24. In summary, the Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I confirm that the facts in this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name
Signature
Date

chyvan

Too long and confused?

Umkomaas

chyvan wrote: »

Too long and confused?

You need to check it out against the recommended example, drawn up by legal expert bargepole which is linked via the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2.

Far too rambling, you only need short paragraphs to deal with what the PPC's Particulars of Claim lands on you. Stuff like the DPA and GDPR (which was not enacted at the time of the contravention) and ANPR surveillance guidelines and servicing records have no direct relevance as to whether there was a breach of a contract by the driver with UKCPM.

16. Even if the Claimant is able to produce such a landowner contract, it is averred that there can be no legitimate interest arguable by the Claimant in this case. When - all too often at this location - ParkingEye unfairly harvest the data of a registered keeper to charge a genuine patron, any commercial justification in the form of landowner support for such unfair ticketing is de facto absent.

If this is a UKCPM charge, where does ParkingEye come into the equation?

The defence is littered with rant-like comments and a lot of it is much nearer to a Witness Statement, which should be the 'What happened on the day from your perspective', so all the minutiae (like stuff about the Chip Shop) should be saved for that.

Unless the contravention occurred prior to Oct 2015, the BPA is irrelevant as UKCPM are IPC members.

The latest 2019 Private Parking Code of Practice Act is irrelevant to a parking charge incurred before its enactment.

I'm afraid as there's a lot of pruning to do, it might be better to start over again using the bargepole example as your guide - try to keep the size roughly in line with that.

chyvan

Thanks Umkomaas, I think I tried to cram in everything I read in the various examples! Will try again.

chyvan

OK, second attempt! Much more concise, modelled on Bargepole as suggested. Hope this is suitable. I've omitted the previous references to disabled occupant / driver, disabled spaces and lack of signage between those and entrance / exit for sake of brevity. Does this look ready now? Thanks!

My Defence (redacted):

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at XXXX pub car park on 13/05/16.

3. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the PCN is being claimed from the Defendant “as the driver/keeper of the Vehicle” and that the “driver of the Vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of issue”. The Particulars of Claim vaguely refer to a “breach of the terms of parking”, yet do not specify how the terms were breached. The requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 have not been met in these vague assertions, and a Cause of Action has not been identified.

5. These vague particulars are unclear as to the legal basis of the claim, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the location of the Claimant's signage is sufficient to ensure visibility to all users of the car park, in particular at the entrance, exit and around the disabled spaces. The sparseness of signs in this car park renders them incapable of binding any reasonable person to the ‘contract’ the Claimant states they represent.

7. The Claimant's signage also displays terms in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is positioned such that it would be extremely difficult for anyone to easily read the tiny font. Therefore, it is denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

8. The Claimant’s signage states “customers spending £10 or more on food & drink may be eligible for free parking, please see a member of staff on arrival” and a separate sign placed below by the pub addresses customers, saying “you DO NOT need to buy a ticket if you spend over £10” (sic), stating below “When spending over £10 the XXXX will issue you with 3 hours free parking.” Both these signs suggest a ticket is not needed if using the facilities of the pub. Due to this ambiguity, it is further denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

10. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

11. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no Cause of Action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

D_P_Dance

£270 is far more than the Law allows for this sort of claim. Asking a £170 extra on a £100 claim is downright dishonest

Gladstones know this, but, because they are solicitors, know that a lot of people will pay up.

Were this to get to court and they won, the judge would be unlikely to award the claimant more than £175 - £200.

I urge you to report this grubby law firm to their regulatory body, the SRA.

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page
and complain to your MP.

On 18th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these private parking companies. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

chyvan

Does my Defence above look sufficient and ready to submit? It feels like I'm omitting loads, but I guess details come in the Witness Statement. Thanks!