Parking Ticket -DCBLegal\G24 - Defence Review Please

tris39

Hi

I have received the evitable claim form and have submitted the AOS, which means I have until 14 July to submit the defence. 

This is the draft, what do you think?

Part 2, we have add "registered keeper and driver", Part 3 is the defence

 2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

3.0 Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on XX/12/2019, as alleged. Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

 3.1 Due to the length of time, the Defendant has no specific recollection of the day in question. The Defendant has parked in this car park many times while shopping at XXXXX. The Defendant was unaware of parking restrictions in place. The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions.

3.3 The Defendant now understands that there is a 120 minute parking allowance and the claim is for allegedly for overstaying by 13 minutes by reviewing a copy of the provided PCN from the claimant.  

As the defendant understands, Under the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, 7 January 2018, Clause 13.2 clearly states that:

“If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken.  In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

Furthermore. Clause 13.4 reinforces, “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes”.

This date coincides with the claimed Defendant being 7 months along in a complicated pregnancy and, therefore impairment of movement should be considered, along with increased holiday traffic and pedestrians at the claimed contravention location.

3.3 To disingenuously bring this parking case to court so late is a cynical move and has caused extreme detriment to the Defendant, who feels almost powerless to prove their case. The Defendant submits that to sit on their hands for nearly six years is extremely unreasonable conduct, and further, adding a debt recovery fee and several years interest at 8%, is not something the court would go along with, the Defendant trusts.

Feedback would be great, thanks again.

Le_Kirk

The word is "inevitable" and have you posted it twice for a reason?
ETA
It could be a forum issue, as I have just seen a couple of other posters in the same position - ignore that question.

Gr1pr

What is the issue date from the top right of the claim form   ?

Post a redacted picture of the POC on the lower left of the claim form after hiding the VRM details first 

tris39

Gr1pr said:

What is the issue date from the top right of the claim form   ?

Post a redacted picture of the POC on the lower left of the claim form after hiding the VRM details first 

Hi 

Thank you for your response,  the issue date on the top of the claim form is 11 June 2025.

Please see attached the POC with the details redacted.  I have not redacted anything from point 3, it seems incomplete on the form, but could be just the way its worded.



Thanks again

tris39

Good Evening Everyone.

I was wondering if anyone did have any a chance to look at this and share any thoughts on this, I have a few days, but thought I would just ask. 

Many thanks

Castle

tris39 said:

3.3 The Defendant now understands that there is a 120 minute parking allowance and the claim is for allegedly for overstaying by 13 minutes by reviewing a copy of the provided PCN from the claimant.  

The claim doesn't mention an overstay, it simply says that the parking was unauthorised.

Coupon-mad

Yep so remove all this:

3.3 The Defendant now understands that there is a 120 minute parking allowance and the claim is for allegedly for overstaying by 13 minutes by reviewing a copy of the provided PCN from the claimant.

As the defendant understands, Under the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, 7 January 2018, Clause 13.2 clearly states that:
“If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken.  In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

Furthermore. Clause 13.4 reinforces, “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes”.

And remove paras 9-11 of the Template Defence about the DLUHC Code and the 2023 Draft IA, because it's old and I am about to remove it from the template.

THEN re-number everything with normal numbers. Not 3.1 etc! 

tris39

Good evening thank you for the feedback.  

I have removed the paras 9-11 and made the adjustments as suggested.  How does this look now?

Thanks again 

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on XX/12/2019, as alleged. Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

4. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has no specific recollection of the day in question. The Defendant has parked in this car park many times while shopping at XXXX. The Defendant was unaware of parking restrictions in place. The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions.

5. This date coincides with the claimed Defendant being 7 months along in a complicated pregnancy and, therefore impairment of movement should be considered, along with increased holiday traffic and pedestrians at the claimed contravention location.

6. To disingenuously bring this parking case to court so late is a cynical move and has caused extreme detriment to the Defendant, who feels almost powerless to prove their case. The Defendant submits that to sit on their hands for nearly six years is extremely unreasonable conduct, and further, adding a debt recovery fee and several years interest at 8%, is not something the court would go along with, the Defendant trusts. 

Coupon-mad

 Very good. I'd add here:

5. This date coincides with the claimed Defendant being 7 months along in a complicated pregnancy and, therefore impairment of movement should be considered, along with increased holiday traffic and pedestrians at the claimed contravention location. It is also impossible to work out how the Claimant believes that shoppers invited to park at this site could possibly be 'unauthorised'.

tris39

Thank you so much for the ongoing feedback, hopefully this is final one, 

I will get this sent over the full version over to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk  unless any final comments.

Thanks again for all your help.

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on XX/12/2019, as alleged. Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

 4. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has no specific recollection of the day in question. The Defendant has parked in this car park many times while shopping at XXXX. The Defendant was unaware of parking restrictions in place. The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions.

5. This date coincides with the claimed Defendant being 7 months along in a complicated pregnancy and, therefore impairment of movement should be considered, along with increased holiday traffic and pedestrians at the claimed contravention location. It is also impossible to work out how the Claimant believes that shoppers invited to park at this site could possibly be 'unauthorised'.

6. To disingenuously bring this parking case to court so late is a cynical move and has caused extreme detriment to the Defendant, who feels almost powerless to prove their case. The Defendant submits that to sit on their hands for nearly six years is extremely unreasonable conduct, and further, adding a debt recovery fee and several years interest at 8%, is not something the court would go along with, the Defendant trusts.