C.U.P (Closed Unit Protection) Parking Enforcement Charge. Court Claim issued.

magjp90

Good evening, this is the draft for my defence before I submit it using MCOL.

Do any of you helpful souls mind informing me of anything I should add before I submit it? 

Thanks in advance.

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 added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5).

3. Parking is defined in the persuasive appeal in Jopson v Homeguard as leaving the vehicle in a convenient place until such time as it is needed. It is denied that the driver was parked at any time. This road is an adopted highway with double yellow lines, meaning an exemption for stopping briefly to unload/load passengers or goods. Signage is forbidding and unable to form any contract with the Claimant. A ‘no parking area’ is not a place that offers a contract to park, therefore, no contract was breached. This area has no clear demarcation between the “managed” area and the public highway. 

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... 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'.

9.  The recent High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) underlines the importance of ensuring litigation is carried out by qualified and authorised professionals. It cuts into the heart of bulk litigation and rips it out. In this case, the POC signatory does not appear to be on the SRA list for DCB Legal and the staff drawing up legal documents and attending Court Mediation to negotiate settlements are believed to be paralegals. Even if acting under supervision, this new authority holds that unauthorised staff cannot conduct litigation.

10. That is before even considering the doctrine of champerty in private parking cases, where some of these 'debt recovery' law firms are known to advertise that they 'front' court fees to fuel bulk litigation for commercial profit only when a sum is recovered. If this is the model used here - and the Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary - paying £ hundreds of thousands in court fees per annum and maintaining boilerplate parking claims with no sign of client (or authorised solicitor) involvement in the cases litigated looks to be contrary to public policy, as well as in breach of DVLA KADOE rules where the parking operator must be the data controller throughout. The arrangement would be unenforceable as a result. In Tactus Holdings Limited (in admin) v Philip Mark Jordan & Ors [2025] EWHC 133 (Comm), the High Court recently handed down an important reminder that, notwithstanding the changing nature of public policy, the rules against champerty and maintenance remain. See also Farrar & Anor v Miller [2022] EWCA Civ 295

11.  With or without a physical Deed of Assignment, claimants cannot assign a bare cause of action and solicitor firms must not engage in arrangements that give them a purely commercial interest in their clients' litigation. This law firm is believed to act on a bulk data exchange 'no-win-no-fee' basis. In view of that and the landmark Speechlys case (where submissions from both the SRA and Law Society were sought and the High Court held that 'supervision' by a solicitor is not sufficient) this parking firm Claimant - NOT the law firm - is put to strict proof that they are involved in all their cases, that their agents' conduct is lawful and that the staff are authorised to conduct litigation. Whilst contingency fee arrangements are not illegal per se, in order to uphold the integrity of the solicitor-client relationship and the role of solicitors as officers of the court, this sort of bulk litigation can and should be disallowed, particularly when the court service is overwhelmed and this industry has been identified by the last two Governments as in 'market failure' (super-profiteering is suggested by the MHCLG in the Summer 2025 Consultation).

12. The court is invited to strike out the claim and grant the Defendant's costs on the indemnity basis due to wholly unreasonable conduct. Although costs do not usually apply in the small claims track (r.38.6(3)), the White Book notes they may be awarded for unreasonable conduct (r.27.14(2)(dg)) including in cases of late discontinuance, if that now occurs.

Coupon-mad

Looks fine, if it all fits.

Could you edit your thread title to remove mention if 'appeal' and to make sense for the stage you are now at?

magjp90

Coupon-mad said:

Looks fine, if it all fits.

Could you edit your thread title to remove mention if 'appeal' and to make sense for the stage you are now at?

Thanks, I'm going to see if it fits now.

And I think I've edited the thread title correctly now.