Template defence to adapt for all parking cases with added 'admin/DRA' costs - edited in 2025

doubledotcom

This is what it is going to look like at 45 characters per line for 122 lines, knowing how their crappy IT system just splits words over a line without hyphenation:

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specifici

ty and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 o

r 16PD7, failing to "state all facts necessar

y for the purpose of formulating a complete c

ause of action". The Defendant is unable to u

nderstand with certainty the allegation or th

e heads of cost. The Defendant denies liabili

ty 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 h

onest belief. To form a contract, there must 

be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuabl

e consideration. It is neither admitted nor d

enied that the driver breached any term. Sect

ion 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the 

CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to

 consider the test of fairness. The CRA intro

duced new requirements for prominence of term

s 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 Cla

imant generally uses unclear and unfair terms

/notices. On the limited information availabl

e, this case appears to be no different. The 

Claimant is put to strict proof with contempo

raneous photographs and the Defendant reserve

s the right to amend the defence if details o

f the contract are provided. However, the cou

rt is invited to strike this claim out using 

its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 3. Save as se

t out below, the Defendant has little or no k

nowledge or recollection of events on the dat

e stated. The vehicle is recognised and it is

 admitted that the Defendant was the register

ed 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 dri

ving, 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 t

he driver disabled and needed more time, etc.

 Say why the car was there - if you know - bu

t don't answer to details not stated in the P

ARTICULARS! {if you have a DCB Legal Claim yo

u can copy the 'Regarding the POC...' paragra

ph 3 seen in recent threads, e.g.https://forum

s.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6608886/g2

4-dcb-court-claim-april-2025-homebase-parking

...and you can add further details as para 3.

1. if you have something important to add, su

ch as the fact you appealed and they refused 

it, or maybe the machines or app were not wor

king, or if you were not driving and believe 

the NTK was non-POFA you should add that and 

deny liability}. 4. DVLA registered keeper da

ta is only supplied on the basis of prior wri

tten agreement from the landowner. The Clai

mant is put to strict proof of their standing

 to sue under a landowner contract and the te

rms/scope and dates/details of the parking ma

nagement service, including the contract itse

lf, all updates and schedules and a map of th

e site boundary as set by the landowner (not 

an unverified Google Maps mock-up). 5. In ord

er to impose a parking charge, as well as pro

ving that the driver breached an obligation, 

there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate inter

est' extending beyond mere compensation for l

oss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any releva

nt obligation(s) and of the charge itself. No

ne of these requirements have been demonstrat

ed and this charge is a penalty. ParkingEye v

 Beavis [2015] UKSC67 is fully distinguished.

 Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 19

8 of Beavis and also to ParkingEye Ltd v Some

rfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) a 

finding unaffected by Beavis. In Somerfield, 

HHJ Hegarty (whose decision was ratified by t

he CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin cos

ts' further inflating a £75 (discounted to £3

7.50) parking charge to £135 was disproportio

nate to the minor cost of template letters an

d 'would appear to be penal'. 6. On 11th July

 2025 a Public Consultation by the Ministry o

f Housing, Communities and Local Government (

‘MHCLG’) began. The Parking (Code of Practice

) Act 2019 will finally curb the unjust enric

hment of the parking industry and debt recove

ry agents (DRAs). Banning DRA fees (mirroring

 the approach of the last Government, which c

alled DRA fees ‘extorting money from motorist

s’) appears likely. The MHCLG have identified

 that the added sums are not part of the park

ing related charges: “profit being made by DR

As is significantly higher than the profits r

eported by parking operators” and “the high p

rofits may be indicative of these firms havin

g too much control over the market, thereby i

ndicating that there is a market failure”. 7.

 The claim exceeds the current Code of Practi

ce £100 maximum parking charge without justif

ication or explanation. Pursuant to Schedule 

4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PO

FA') it also exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recove

rable; the explanatory notes to s4 (5) and (6

) state at para 221: ‘’The creditor may not m

ake a claim against the keeper [...] for more

 than the amount of the unpaid parking relate

d charges as they stood when the notice to th

e driver was issued (para 4(5)).’’ 8. The Cla

imant is put to proof of POFA and Code of Pra

ctice compliance. It is denied that any DRA s

ums are due, nor interest (the delay lies wit

h the Claimant and interest should be disallo

wed). 9. The delay in litigation has made ret

rieving material documents/evidence impossibl

e for the Defendant, which is highly prejudic

ial. The Defendant seeks standard witness cos

ts (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable 

LittleLittle1

Coupon-mad said:

LittleLittle1 said:

Just to clarify — I tried submitting via MCOL today and can confirm that there is a strict limit on the online defence text box. My defence was significantly longer, but the system cut it off at exactly 122 lines. Anything beyond that is simply not accepted or saved.

So yes, the warning about line limits is correct — even if the character count might seem acceptable, the box has a hard cap on the number of lines.

I will post the full signed defence to the court tomorrow (Monday), as advised elsewhere.

How much of this new template defence fitted?

I pasted the first 2 points into the box, and then the entire template (without the bold notes in point 3), and this is what it looks like.

doubledotcom

That appears to allow 65 characters per line. But what you've shown has not been truncated.

doubledotcom

This is 103 lines at max 65 characters per line without splitting words over a line:


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))."

Le_Kirk

For safety's sake, back to email then!

Le_Kirk

That's good information; be interesting to read what you see after 5.00 p.m.

Le_Kirk

For when you return from hols @Coupon-mad, the title for First 8 steps, still says First 12 steps.

Umkomaas

Stitch25 said:

Just had a look at the MCOL summary:
>Your defence was submitted on 12/07/25
>your defence was received on 14/07/25 at pm
I've checked and everything has fit in. Am I supposed to receive a questioner? Do I have to check in any other place or link in the MCOL, itself? 

Steps 2 and 3 of the 8 Steps you should follow in the first post of this thread. Worth reading so you know what to expect and when. 

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 .....

Umkomaas

Stitch25 said:

Ok, thanks. I can only do one step at the time. I've been spending hours and days reading and reading again, to get right.  So, thanks for any little important detail sharing  and helping me to get it done. So my next step is wait for the questioner and follow the steps. It has been one of the most stressful things I've been through, mainly because of my slow thoughts process and language barrier. I won't give up, but that the reason vulnerable people can just pay those scammers. Thank you !

That's fine, but could you please ask any further questions on your own thread please, not on this one going forward. 

mezzyd

Le_Kirk said:

For safety's sake, back to email then!

May I please ask for the email address for the defence to be restated, as I can no longer see it in the 8 steps (apologies if I am missing it)