Template defence to adapt for all parking cases with added 'admin/DRA' costs - edited in 2024

Coupon-mad

PLEASE READ THIS POST FIRST TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO USE SOME OR ALL OF THIS SUGGESTED TEMPLATE AS PART OF YOUR INDIVIDUAL DEFENCE, THAT YOU CAN THEN DRAFT.  

YOUR FINAL DEFENCE THAT YOU DECIDE TO DRAFT IS YOUR OWN.  NOTHING ON THIS BOARD IS LEGAL ADVICE, JUST OPINIONS BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF WINNING DEFENCES.

THE MAIN INFO ABOUT THE SMALL CLAIMS DEFENCE PROCESS AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN, IS HERE IN THE NEWBIES FAQS (2nd post):
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350585/#Comment_64350585

Below in the 2nd post of THIS thread, is some wording to use as your base.

The facts of your case should be added as #3 - add more paragraphs if you need more (BUT NOT TOO MUCH AS THE MCOL SYSTEM HAS A MAX LINE COUNT) and adjust the numbering.

No posting your drafts on this thread please. By all means start a new discussion about your own case if you haven't already got a thread about that PCN, and show us your draft defence wording (your added paragraphs only, please) on your own thread.

You will be using MCOL via your Govt Gateway account. The steps are:

FIRST THING TO DO - BUT NOT SOONER THAN DAY FIVE FROM THE 'ISSUE DATE':

Acknowledging service of a claim (these steps MUST be done by the Defendant, and that named person can't be changed to the driver now; it is too late):
Here is the up to date document from SoftwareMad, where she shows how to acknowledge a claim, which is to be done within the first fortnight to buy yourself time to defend (but preferably after DAY FIVE, or you eat into your allowed days!):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ni1h8g3u5skvynt/MCOL AOS help file.pdf?dl=0

YOU WILL NOT GET A RESPONSE.  YOU MUST THEN DRAFT YOUR DEFENCE IN TIME.

Use the Template Defence shown in the post below...

...unless you have a CEL (in-house only), Elms Legal, Gladstones or Moorside Legal claim (and also specifically for DCB Legal claims for ParkingEye or Group Nexus / CP Plus) in which case the start should include the extra wording and link to CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande, here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81199155/#Comment_81199155

Submitting your defence after having already completed the AOS on MCOL:

When you are happy with what you've drafted, your defence is to also be filed via MCOL

This is changed advice because the CNBC kept losing emailed defences!

THE FIRST 12 STEPS:

1. Use MCOL to put in your Defence.  Do not forget to hit 'SUBMIT' then check the Claim History, to see that the defence is safely registered.
2. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire or the usual template letter saying they 'intend to proceed' and/or want you to 'settle'. Ignore that!
3. Wait for your own Directions Questionnaire from the CNBC and then complete & email it to the CNBC (see box below for the DQ email) and cc in the info@ address for the legals acting for the Claimant. It's a simple form but all the DQ answers are here:   https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81302208/#Comment_81302208 
4. Mediation is Mandatory now. YOU MUST GIVE THE MEDIATOR 5 MINUTES OF YOUR TIME TO AVOID ADVERSE COSTS RISK -  Offer zero or a tenner, if you technically owe a parking tariff (or just fancy some fun) see here:  https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80935749/#Comment_80935749  Another example:   https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81148195/#Comment_81148195
5. Except in cases where you have filed a counterclaim (which are allocated to your local court quicker and the CNBC is no longer involved) the completed DQ should be returned by email to the CCBC to this address:  DQ.CNBC@justice.gov.uk.       Cc a copy of your completed DQ to the Claimant (or their solicitor if they are using one).  Their postal address is on your Claim Form but you can find an email for them by searching this forum. 
6. DO NOT USE RECORDED (OR SPECIAL) DELIVERY FOR ANYTHING TO A PARKING FIRM OR THEIR SOLICITOR.   DO NOT EXPECT ROGUE FIRMS TO SIGN FOR YOUR LETTERS.  IF THEY DON'T, ALL YOU HAVE IS PROOF OF NON-DELIVERY, WHICH IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU NEED!
7. Will you have to attend a hearing? MAYBE...but usually, the PPC discontinues; very common with DCB Legal! Will that hearing be at Northampton?  NO!  That's just a central starting point for claims.  If you are an individual, you get the choose your local court. You do NOT want your case 'heard on the papers'. You want a hearing.
8. You can claim your costs if you win, the hearing might never happen and you risk nothing (no CCJ, no huge costs) by defending, because if you were among the handful who report a loss here you'd have 30 days to pay ... and less than on the claim form (£185 - £212 total).

Coupon-mad

DEFENCE

1.  The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the allegation or the heads of cost. The Defendant denies liability for the inflated sum claimed, or at all.

2.  It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract, there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the limited information available, this case appears to be no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs and the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided. However, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

3.  Save as set out below, the Defendant has little or no knowledge or recollection of events on the date stated. The vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

^^ADD CASE SPECIFIC FACTS HERE OR REFER TO & LINK CHAN & AKANDE IF THE POC ARE POOR.

If you didn't get any letters or it was years ago & you can't recall if you were driving, say that. ONLY IF TRUE.

Was it a double dip ANPR error, or a keying error, were you staff/lived there with a right to park? Was the driver disabled and needed more time, etc.

Say why the car was there - if you know - but don't answer to details not stated in the PARTICULARS!

{if you have a DCB Legal Claim you can copy the 'Regarding the POC...' paragraph 3 seen in recent threads, e.g.https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6608886/g24-dcb-court-claim-april-2025-homebase-parking

...and you can add further details as para 3.1. if you have something important to add, such as the fact you appealed and they refused it, or maybe the machines or app were not working, or if you were not driving and believe the NTK was non-POFA you should add that and deny liability}.

4. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written agreement from the landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to sue under a landowner contract and the terms/scope and dates/details of the parking management service, including the contract itself, all updates and schedules and a map of the site boundary as set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps mock-up).

5.  In order to impose a parking charge, as well as proving that the driver breached an obligation, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any relevant obligation(s) and of the charge itself. None of these requirements have been demonstrated and this charge is a penalty. ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 is fully distinguished. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis and also to ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) a finding unaffected by Beavis. In Somerfield, HHJ Hegarty (whose decision was ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' further inflating a £75 (discounted to £37.50) parking charge to £135 was disproportionate to the minor cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

6. On 11th July 2025 a Public Consultation by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘MHCLG’) began. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 will finally curb the unjust enrichment of the parking industry and debt recovery agents (DRAs). Banning DRA fees (mirroring the approach of the last Government, which called DRA fees ‘extorting money from motorists’) appears likely. The MHCLG have identified that the added sums are not part of the parking related charges: “profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than the profits reported by parking operators” and “the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure”.

7. The claim exceeds the current Code of Practice £100 maximum parking charge without justification or explanation. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') it also exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recoverable; the explanatory notes to s4 (5) and (6) state at para 221: ‘’The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper [...] for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5)).’’

8.  The Claimant is put to proof of POFA and Code of Practice compliance. It is denied that any DRA sums are due, nor interest (the delay lies with the Claimant and interest should be disallowed).

9.  The delay in litigation has made retrieving material documents/evidence impossible for the Defendant, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks standard witness costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant, opening up further costs (CPR 46.5).

10. The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst a Claimant is liable for a Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))." 

YankeeBrit

Copy of @Coupon-mad updated WS in RTF format for easy editing:

dropbox.com/scl/fi/i1u2vudfmb4xgyksxf6fd/Aug2023WS.rtf?rlkey=bfedahtd4lw4pqth2cncrrpli&dl=0

LZH85

Thank you so much for the above, just submitted my defence online. Please note that there is a restriction of 120 lines when logging your defence online and hence I had to tweak the above as it wouldn't all fit. Also a reminder to save as you go as it times out!

Coupon-mad

LZH85 said:

Thank you so much for the above, just submitted my defence online. Please note that there is a restriction of 120 lines when logging your defence online and hence I had to tweak the above as it wouldn't all fit. Also a reminder to save as you go as it times out!

But that's not how we currently submit defences. Why did you do it in MCOL? 

LZH85

Coupon-mad said:

LZH85 said:

Thank you so much for the above, just submitted my defence online. Please note that there is a restriction of 120 lines when logging your defence online and hence I had to tweak the above as it wouldn't all fit. Also a reminder to save as you go as it times out!

But that's not how we currently submit defences. Why did you do it in MCOL? 

Whats the issue? The claims form states you can submit online at www.moneyclaim.gov.uk, the online defense form is exactly the same as the paper defense form and it populates everything. Its also time stamped with an audit trail as to when its submitted. You don't have to physically sign a paper version if you submit an online version.

Coupon-mad

Yep we know but you can't fit the Template Defence in and MCOL ruins the formatting. This isn't what the first 12 steps says to do, for that reason.

But at some point I might change it!

No worries, just wondered why you didn't follow the advice in the Template Defence thread and instead read the claim form, which doesn't even tell you about the email option we all use.  Like I said - no worries with this (a defence is in) but you went off piste. 

RandomGuy2024

@Coupon-mad is the address below a typo? Should it be DQ.CCBC@justice.gov.uk?

10. Except in cases where you have filed a counterclaim (which are allocated to your local court quicker and the CNBC is no longer involved) the completed DQ should be returned by email to the CCBC to this address:  DQ.CNBC@justice.gov.uk.       Cc a copy of your completed DQ to the Claimant (or their solicitor if they are using one).  Their postal address is on your Claim Form but you can find an email for them by searching this forum.

Regards

sammyb1996

Doesn’t look like this defence template worked for me, the judge struck my defence out. Any chance someone could look at my post on a new thread I started? 

kenzie123

sammyb1996 said:

Doesn’t look like this defence template worked for me, the judge struck my defence out. Any chance someone could look at my post on a new thread I started? 

Sorry to hear that, can you link to your post?

Coupon-mad

Comments invited although I am now away for a week!

I've updated the Template Defence, which can now be used and put in on MCOL. It's only 10 paragraphs and leaves enough lines for people to put some details in as para 3.

Thanks to @Johnersh @bargepole and @ChirpyChicken for the bits I have plagiarised.

There are now only 8 steps.

No need for headings nor a SoT, nor signature.  No emailing it!