1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.
The facts as known to the Defendant:
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.
3. First and foremost, the address of where the penalty charge was given to the vehicle has been used by the Defendant for nineteen years for parking. In addition to this, the location is a two slot car bay with no specific signage in front or within the bay indicating that it is being controlled by UK CPM.
4. Only after receiving a penalty charge was the Defendant able to notice a sign that vaguely states there is a private parking enforcement but has no indications as to whether it enforces the specific bay where the Defendant’s vehicle was parked at the time or if it is a sign to notify road users that you are entering into a private car park with enforcement. Nor are there markings on ground or signage within or close to the bay itself indicating it is a private car bay.
5. It is also important to note that the Defendant's vehicle on that specific date was unable to move from the location as it was giving electrical faults on vehicle start up and required to be towed away. A claim against the penalty charge was sent only to be rejected at the time.