County Court Claim - Parking Eye / Birchanger Service Area Bishop Strotford

Le_Kirk

estevenin said:

1/ I have no contract with the Claimant.

I, the Defendant, am is a private hire driver, the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle involved in the claim. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from an alleged breach of contract, which is denied I deny. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a punitive £100 'parking charge notice' (PCN) for the lawful conduct described below, as I the defendant had no knowledge of such parking charge.

2/ Unclear terms – no signs readable at entry / inadequate signage to form a contract

The small signs at the entrance are in a confusing location, with most of it written in small prints font, which is particularly difficult to read whilst driving, with any potential contract terms too small to be visible, ParkingEye can’t realistically expect a driver to notice the sign amongst all the others, stop the car in the only one single carriageway  slip road towards the car’s parking (and become a road hazard), read it in full, proceed process it and agree to the terms, so they can claim that entry to the service automatically forms a contract between the driver and Parking Eye. The distribution of the signage around the car park is also inadequate.


3/ Unclear terms - unconscionable penalty relying upon a hidden pay and display machine

According to the sparse signs in this car park, it transpires that to avoid a Parking Charge, drivers are expected to pay a fee after a 2h free stay limit. That would only be possible if a pay and display machine or similar would were to be available and visible, in the car park. Or Alternatively a barrier ticket would be provided at entry and exit. It is unclear where those machines are and it appears that most facilities (such as Starbucks Coffee) do not provide such a machine.

4/ Lack of good faith, fairness or transparency and misleading business practices

Parking firms should concentrate on ensuring that consent from the car driver is collected, by requiring an action from them, such as collecting a ticket on entry, or displaying a ticket through Pay and Display machines. By failing to adequately alert patrons to Pay and Display machine could be considered as 'misleading omissions' of material facts. These are specific breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and transgress the tests of fairness and transparency of consumer contracts, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

5/ Insufficient evidence from the claimant that a breach of contract occurred

According to the POC, the car has “parked without paying to park”. A 'parked car' is a stationary car, the time spent looking for a parking space (or taking petrol or ordering a coffee in a drive-through) is not deemed as parking, as found in case 3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014). Fistral Beach. ParkingEye has no evidence of how long the vehicle was in a “moving situation” vs. “stationary”, and there is no provision made for a “grace period”, in their terms. Therefore, the enforcement of “overstaying” after 2h free parking is hazardous, and does not rely on any concrete action or timeline. Due to the nature of my the defendant's profession, I am due he has to make some safety stops to rest, for food, toilet and petrol brakes breaks between fares. As such, it could also be that the ANPR camera has captured two or more visits (one on the northbound carriageway for petrol or food and one on the southbound carriageway for coffee), whilst on a shift in that area. Capturing two visits as if they are one is a known fault of ANPR, which is known by the Claimant as well, as suggested in the many news articles featuring the matter.

The ANPR camera provides evidence of a vehicle entering and exiting the facility. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit and is no evidence of 'No Authorisation' or not being a patron of the facility. It does not exclude that the car could have entered and exited twice either, only capturing the first entry and the last exit.

6/ Lack of willingness from the claimant

As of today’s date, ParkingEye did not send me a letter before claim which was compliant with practice directions. As a result the parties have not been able to complete the exchange of information needed for me to file my full defence and have not been able to complete Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). I have learned of Parking Eye claims on the 15th of June 2021, for an alledged breach of contract that occurred on the 6th of October 2020, more than 9 months after, time in which the matter could have been resolved without wasting the court’s time.

Upon receiving the claim, I researched this all too common issue and was advised to communicate with the solicitor in charge, Mme Miss/Mrs Jayne Leonard, employee of ParkingEye, to seek debt advice (yet I deny any debt) and asked that the case to be put on hold for not less than 30 days, under PAP for debt claims 2017. I contacted ParkingEye on the 22nd of June, and I responded to their answer on the 26th of June, in both occasion ParkingEye ignored my request, did not contact their in-house solicitor on my behalf as requested, preventing any mediation other that court proceedings and breaking the PAP for debt claims 2017.

A request for Subject Access Request (SAR) has been made on the 22nd of June 2021. As of today, the request hasn’t been fulfilled either.

 

7/ No genuine pre-estimate of loss or breach of contract

The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract, ParkingEye is unable to justify that figure. I would also question that if a charge can be discounted by 40% by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with. The fee being charged contravenes the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997.

If the 'parking charge' (the first interpretation meaning the car park tariff) was unpaid, then the sum 'owed' is a quantifiable figure. The POC does not precise the sum owed after the free period, therefore the sum 'owed' was nil, according to the recent, frankly awful, Birchanger Service Area TripAdvisor reviews from people who have also been caught here by ParkingEye. Had I been clearly alerted to the sum on the day - or even simpler, if they could have had the certainty of paying it when entering the car park or being given an entry ticket - there would be no unfair penalty, and the Service Area (or landowner) would gain in income and avoid any parking issues at all, including all the complaints mounting up online about ParkingEye at the otherwise useful site.

Taking the comments of the Supreme Court (and the Court of Appeal in the earlier hearing in Beavis) into account, the 'parking charge' sum owed in this case can, at most, only be £0, or the sum advertised had the signs be seen, and there is ample opportunity to fairly collect and transparently advertise that sum on site, on the material day.

8/ No legitimate interest - the penalty rule remains engaged

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.

9/ Arbitrary court costs

The claim includes a sum of £50, described as ‘Solicitor’s costs’. The Claimant is known to be a serial litigant, issuing up to 1,000 similar claims on a weekly basis, using the bulk processing service. Since these are fully automated and the “in-house solicitor” is already paid for their time, the Solicitor’s fee of £50 is redundant. No intervention is required by a solicitor, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred.
As a result of the above, I deny the claim in full and intend to fully defend it, and submit that it ought to be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success due to the Claimant’s failure to comply with the statutory requirements for Keeper Liability.

10/ In the matter of costs, I seek :

a. Standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14 and

b. that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance. I seek a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-actions phases by this claimamt, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5

Conclusion

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 use a Payment machine at the venue reception, 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'.

There also can't be any contract, had the car not be parked (stationnary) for more than 2 hours, hence no breach can be claimed.

I deny 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.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Suggestions as above.  You cannot enter a "longer defence" later.  What posters mean is that your defence should be short, punchy and relevant, whilst also conveying the reason why you refute the POC.  You can back it up and support it with evidence in the Witness Statement (WS).  Defences are written in the third person so where you have used "I" you need to alter it to read "the defendant" and in some parts you will need a rewrite so it makes grammatical sense.  I removed the phrase about being on north and southbound carriageways, unless you know that the two ANPR cameras are linked.  Your point #7 is not valid in its entirety as GPEOL went out with Beavis.  Check it out by searching the forum or asking Auntie Google.  There are many more instances of I/me/my so check them out and rewrite them.

Redx

As above , you only get one shot at a defence , the first shot , once it's been submitted , it's on file and cannot be changed without paying say £100 or more , so only one chance

There is no I or Me etc in a defence , you are the defendant so you say the defendant , or the claimant , third party speak

Plus it should be shorter and stick to the bare facts , like setting a stage before a play , the script is the defence narrative as numbered bullet points ,  fleshed out later by witness statements plus exhibits , no actors yet , no ad libs or asides , no orchestra , no audience either !!

In a murder trial , this could be your defence

Not guilty , the defendant was not there , the defendant was 4000 miles away in Brisbane at the time !!

When in court exhibits are shown of your hotel booking in Brisbane , CCTV footage , mobile phone data , spending in shops and cafes , when on the stand you orally back up your witness statement to the court etc

When asked what do you plead ???  Not guilty your honour !!

So your defence is not guilty , not war and peace !!

Coupon-mad

I would never even use the phrase 'no genuine pre-estimate of loss' as it is far too close to what all Judges know means nothing, since the Supreme Court got over-impressed by the parking industry's barrister and the BPA Code of Practice and thought this greedy, incentivised business model was worthy of support.

estevenin

Many thanks Le_Kirk for the suggestions, it warms my heart. I will modify accordingly, modify all the "I" and will remove the point #7 as well.

Redx said:

Plus it should be shorter and stick to the bare facts , like setting a stage before a play , the script is the defence narrative as numbered bullet points ,  fleshed out later by witness statements plus exhibits , no actors yet , no as libs or asides , no orchestra , no audience either !!

I had though that there would be one actor, in the form of ParkingEye representative

Coupon-mad said:

I would never even use the phrase 'no genuine pre-estimate of loss' as it is far too close to what all Judges know means nothing, since the Supreme Court got over-impressed by the parking industry's barrister and the BPA Code of Practice and thought this greedy, incentivised business model was worthy of support.

Well received. If 100 is an acceptable deterrent, then where is the limit...

Many thanks once again, I have one more week and will try to work on it the best I can, as fast as possible and come back to you. In the meantime, is there any "known to be considered" argument for a case like mine, that I would have missed to add on my defence ? I will keep looking as well.  

Coupon-mad

How long was the overstay?

Would it be fair to say you might also have got petrol, and this the actual parking time was not more than 2 hours?

Refer to this case in your defence:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4835050/Parking-firm-took-lawyer-85-fine-lost.html

estevenin

Will do, thank you. I have so far no idea how long the overstay was, what time the car entered and what time it exited. Haven't received the SAR and doubt that I will have it before the 19th, if they do send it on time, they might keep the suspense for the last day (22nd). No there is definitely no petrol taken as I would have paid by card, however I could have put some air in the tyre at the petrol station, I often do if I have time ahead.

Coupon-mad

There you go, you believe you spent time in the petrol station topping up your tyres as you often do. Add that to your defence and point out the DFT set a minimum free two hours PARKING TO REST and that time in the petrol station cannot be included. 

Don’t worry about the SAR coming back in time, it will be in good time for WS stage later, when you need it! 

Please do come back here regularly this Summer, ready to spend an hour being heard to Government by completing the upcoming Final Technical Consultation about regulating the levels of parking charges from next year. 

Coming soon...

...please check back on the forum each week as we need real people like you to counterbalance the spamming of the Consultation by the industry and people purporting to be ‘landowners’.

estevenin

Coupon-mad said:

Please do come back here regularly this Summer, ready to spend an hour being heard to Government by completing the upcoming Final Technical Consultation about regulating the levels of parking charges from next year. 

Coming soon...

...please check back on the forum each week as we need real people like you to counterbalance the spamming of the Consultation by the industry and people purporting to be ‘landowners’.

Will gladly do. I tend to always defend the PCN's I receive in full - even if with little to no chance - if believe I have been tricked, to force enforcement costs up, as, when alone, this is the only - best thing you can do. And ultimately if enough of us do it, it can lead to improvement in councils (have seen it happening on the road!) and parking firms to play fairly.

Dart Charge is now allowing drivers to pay a PCN, by just paying the late charge - which is only fair.

Will happilly defend this case and would be happy to be part of the mass if I can contribute.

estevenin

I have re-worked my defence as suggested, found a few other useful points as well, I hope it didn't become too long, once again any suggestion is welcomed. And thank you again for allowing time on this forum to provide professional help, otherwise impossible to get.

1/ Background - The Defendant has no contract with the Claimant.

The Defendant is a private hire driver, the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle involved in the claim. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from an alleged breach of contract, which is denied. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a punitive £100 “parking charge” for the lawful conduct described below, as the defendant had no knowledge of such parking charge.

2/ Unclear terms – no signs readable at entry / inadequate signage to form a contract

The small signs at the entrance are in a confusing location, with most of it written in small font which is particularly difficult - if not dangerous - to read whilst driving with any potential contract terms too small to be visible. ParkingEye can’t realistically expect a driver to notice the sign amongst all the others, stop the car in the only single carriageway slip road towards the car’s parking (and become a road hazard), read it in full, process it and agree to the terms, so they can claim that entry to the service automatically forms a contract between the driver and Parking Eye.

The Defendant was horrified to now discover that the distribution of the sparse, unlit signs around the car park is also inadequate. Surprisingly, it appears that from the parking’s entrance to the main building or other facilities such as Starbucks Coffee, it is very likely that no sign at all will be seen. Whilst there are other signage around the car park, these are usually badly lit, covered by trees, hidden by cars or facing directions that means no patron would look at them, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of their signs inside WH Smith. The Defendant would have needed to be in luck to fall on a parking space where those are placed. And yet, the equally small size and font would fail to make it easily visible.

There aren’t any signs warning people at the petrol station that the time spent there is counted by ParkingEye (who have no signs at the petrol pumps) as if it were part of the allowed rest time.

ParkingEye clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of contract.

A similar case, Nicholas Bowen vs ParkingEye in particular was awarded to Mr Bowen after defending ParkingEye’s misconceived claim on a public interest basis by breaching consumer protection law and having an unenforceable contract. This resulted in ParkingEye paying £1,550 in legal costs to Mr Bowen

3/ Unclear terms - unconscionable penalty relying upon a hidden pay and display machine

According to the sparse signs in this car park, it transpires that to avoid a Parking Charge, drivers are expected to pay a fee after a 2h free stay limit, at the WH Smith store. The text that includes the T&C's (alleged contract) on these signs is smaller than recommended by the DVLA for road signs and so are impossible to see whilst driving past. And that would only be possible if a Pay and Display machine or similar were to be available and visible, in the car park. Alternatively, a barrier ticket would be provided at entry and exit. It is unclear where those machines are and it appears that most facilities (such as Starbucks Coffee) do not provide such a machine.

For example, a first visit at the petrol forecourt for tyre maintenance, then a second visit later towards the Starbucks Coffee drive-in or facility, would not allow awareness of those machines being there, not from the unreadable entry sign or from the facilities themselves.

4/ Lack of good faith, fairness or transparency and misleading business practices

Parking firms should concentrate on ensuring that consent from the car driver is collected, by requiring an action from them, such as collecting a ticket on entry or displaying a ticket through Pay and Display machines. Failing to do so could be considered as “misleading omissions” of material facts. These are specific breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and transgress the tests of fairness and transparency of consumer contracts, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There is no consideration from ParkingEye to motorist; the gift of parking is the landowner’s, not ParkingEye’s. There is no consideration from motorist to ParkingEye; this is a Free car park, and there is no method or contemplation of payment of any parking charges whilst on site. As such, the essential parts of the contract that the claimant purports to exist are missing ab initio.

4.1/ Binding Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving unclear terms and a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of an onerous parking charge, would include:

(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (the ‘red hand rule’ case) and

(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2,

both leading authorities confirming that an unseen/hidden clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

(ii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000,

where the Court of Appeal held that it was unsurprising that the appellant did not see the sign ''in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space''. In many cases where parking firm Claimants have cited Vine in their template witness statements, they have misled courts by quoting out of context from Roch LJ, whose words related to the Respondent’s losing case, and not from the ratio. To pre-empt that, in fact Miss Vine won because it was held as a fact that she was not afforded a fair opportunity to learn of the terms by which she would be bound.

4.2/ Fairness and clarity are paramount in the new statutory CoP being finalised by the MHCLG and this stance is supported by the BPA and IPC alike. In the November 2020 issue of Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, the Chief Executive of the IPC Trade Body, observed: 'Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike." The Defendant's position is that the signs and terms the Claimant is relying upon were not clear, and were in fact, unfair and the Beavis case is fully distinguished.

5/ Insufficient evidence from the claimant that a breach of contract occurred

According to the POC, the car has “parked without paying to park”. A “parked car” is a stationary car, the time spent looking for a parking space (or taking petrol or ordering a coffee in a drive-through) is not deemed as parking, as found in case 3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014). Fistral Beach. ParkingEye has no evidence of how long the vehicle was in a “moving situation” vs. “stationary”, and there is no provision made for a “grace period”, in their terms. Therefore, the enforcement of “overstaying” after 2h free parking is hazardous, and does not rely on any concrete action or timeline.

Due to the nature of the Defendant’s profession, he has to make some safety stops to rest, for food, toilet and petrol breaks between fares. The Defendant believes he spent time in the petrol station topping up tyres and cleaning the vehicle as he often does when there is time ahead, and that time cannot be included in the “parking time”.

Motorway signage also recommend to regularly take breaks. As such, it could also be that the ANPR camera has captured two or more visits, only capturing the first entry and the last exit, whilst on a shift in that area. Capturing two visits as if they are one is a known fault of ANPR, which is known by the Claimant as well, as suggested in the many news articles featuring the matter.

The ANPR cameras are not positioned exclusively on the car parking spaces, the time calculated by the Claimant for the parking charge would include time driving around the car park and using other services and the time to leave the site, and is therefore unfair to include in the minimum rest time that is legally required to be offered free, as the Defendant now discovers is set as a minimum, under the Motorway Service Area (MSA) rules from the Department for Transport (DFT), and the Claimant is put to strict proof to differentiate the parking event from the time spent in other facilities.

The ANPR camera provides evidence of a vehicle entering and exiting the facility. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit and is no evidence of  “No Authorisation” or not being a patron of the facility. Thus the premise of this charge is insubstantial. No breach of any contract has occurred and no charge can arise.

5/ Lack of willingness from the claimant

As of today’s date, ParkingEye did not send the Defendant a Letter Before Claim which was compliant with practice directions. As a result the parties have not been able to complete the exchange of information needed for the Defendant to file his full defence and have not been able to complete Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The Defendant has learnt of the claims on the 15th of June 2021, for an alleged breach of contract that occurred on the 6th of October 2020, more than 9 months after, time in which the matter could have been resolved without wasting the court’s time. To confirm that the Defendant is aware of such a charge, ParkingEye could use a tracked letter or require a signature on reception.

Upon receiving the claim, the Defendant researched this all too common issue and was advised to communicate with the solicitor in charge, Miss/Mrs Jayne Leonard, employee of ParkingEye, to seek debt advice (yet any debt is denied) and asked that the case to be put on hold for not less than 30 days, under PAP for debt claims 2017. The Defendant contacted ParkingEye on the 22nd of June, and responded back to their answer on the 26th of June, in both occasion ParkingEye ignored the Defendant’s request, did not contact their in-house solicitor on the Defendant’s behalf as requested, preventing any mediation other that court proceedings and breaking the PAP for debt claims 2017.

A request for Subject Access Request (SAR) has been made on the 22nd of June 2021. As of today, the request hasn’t been fulfilled either, so the details of the alleged breach of contract such as “parking time”, “entry time” and “exit time”, are still unknown. But it is expected that it will show no signs and no paperwork from the Claimant, giving any hint to the registered keeper recipients, that the onside businesses could very easily cancel a charge as well, giving the Defendant as the only choice the Payment of an arbitrary charge. Withholding the Welcome Break route of cancellation/complaint from a consumer is, yet again after explained in point 4), a “misleading omission” of material facts. Along with the hidden unlit T&Cs, this too is a breach of the CPUTRs 2008 which caused the unfair Parking Charge and prevented its cancellation before proceeding started. This conduct by the Claimant in suppressing key information about a cancellation route, is in any case severely disadvantaging for the Defendant.

According to reasearch the only route offered would have been a supposed “appeal” to ParkingEye themselves, which the Defendant wasn’t offered at all, but the Defendant knew that no offence or mischief had occurred and honestly believe that, private parking charges and the appeals systems were unlikely to be fairly weighted in favour of consumers.

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, ParkingEye 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.

The Defendant also points out that the POC does not precise the sum owed after the free period, therefore the sum “owed” was nil.

estevenin

6/ No legitimate interest - the penalty rule remains engaged

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 show general authority for "parking management" regarding this site, it is in the public domain that a Schedule addendum in the Welcome Break/ParkingEye contract states that Welcome Break's agreement must be obtained before court action in every case. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they obtained this landowner agreement specific to this case, in advance of filing this claim.

This case is fully distinguished in all respects, from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, where the decision turned on a legitimate interest and clear notices, neither of which exist to save this case from the penalty rule.

The Claimant is then put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the relevant land to the Claimant. It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this Claimant to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this Claimant has standing to enforce such charges by means of civil litigation in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.

7/ Arbitrary court costs

The claim includes a sum of £50, described as “Solicitor’s costs”. The Claimant is known to be a serial litigant, issuing up to 1,000 similar claims on a weekly basis, using the bulk processing service. Since these are fully automated and the “in-house solicitor” is already paid for their time, the Solicitor’s fee of £50 is redundant. No intervention is required by a solicitor, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred.

10/ In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

a. Standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14 and

b. that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance. The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-actions phases by this claimant, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5

Conclusion

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 use a Payment machine at the venue reception, 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'.

As a result of the above, the Defendant denies the claim in full and intend to fully defend it, voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons, and submit that it ought to be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success due to the Claimant’s failure to comply with the statutory requirements for Keeper Liability. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.