UKPCL and DCBLegal - Defence Guidance

Tyro123_2

I have updated Defence text as follows, and in line with feedback received. I will email in the morning during office hours:

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 18/02/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, 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. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

3.1. There are no payment machines, illuminated signs nor gates at the entrance and the pictures on UKPC's website were so dark that they neither identified where the car was parked, nor any readable wording about a £100 parking charge risk. Even if the court finds that a driver could have read pitch black unexpected terms in the dark, the POC pleads that the purported contract was offered to 'registered users only'.  The Defendant had no idea about that term and no idea what 'relevant obligation' they are supposed to have missed or how a driver can become 'registered'. Nevertheless, nothing of value is offered to non-registered drivers by the phrase relied upon in the POC. No parking space is offered.  Therefore in the absence of consideration from the trader, no contractual 'meeting of minds' was possible and the only possible claim would be by the landowner, under the tort of trespass (not pleaded).  As found by DJ Iyer at Manchester Court, in PACE v Lengyel.

Gr1pr

Don't forget to add an ending to paragraph 2 as well.
Remember to use ALL of the defence template,  its around 30 paragraphs in total 

Email to claim responses, details are in the template defence thread, checking for the auto response email 

Tyro123_2

Thanks for the reminder @Gr1pr. 

Ensured I completed paragraph 2 and sent across 30 paragraphs in total as PDF attachment to: ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

Got the following back:

Thank you for emailing the Claim Responses Team in the Civil National Business Centre. Please expect a response to your enquiry in 10 days

When sending us documents please ensure you comply with the Practice Direction 5B

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part05/pd_part05b

Documents not complying will not be accepted, in particular if it is over 10MB or 25 printed pages in size.

Tyro123_2

N180 came through, filled, scanned and submitted via email to DQ and legal email addresses. Got confirmation emails

Found this post very useful when filling in N180: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6442803/n180-form-april-23-guidance-provided

Once again, hugely grateful for this forum and all the guidance that it provides to fight these crooks!

Nellymoser

If you want to see Parking companies practice improve then sign the petition linked in the post below. Ask family, friends and work colleagues to sign too. 

Once your signature is confirmed use the shown link to 'Contact your MP to let them know you have signed this petition'. Our MPs are the ones to make this happen. 🙏

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81195013/#Comment_81195013

Tyro123_2

@Nellymoser, I have signed this petition - thanks for sharing.

Tyro123_2

An update here. Mediation call was day before yesterday. Initial offer to settle was £195, I counter offered £3.80. Their best offer was £135 which I declined. Mediation was unsuccessful.

Coupon-mad

£3.80 

Tyro123_2

I have received notice of allocation to small claims track: 

Tyro123_2

I have prepared the following witness statement and hoping to call Uxbridge county court in the morning to ask them, at which email address I can send it over.

Deadline is 17th July, so a little last minute my end unfortunately.

@Coupon-mad / @Gr1pr / @KeithP, if any of you can please review this WS when you have a minute, and provide feedback, will be greatly appreciated

I have also created a Costs Assessment A4 page with costs (as instructed in newbies thread) I have incurred thus far. Should I sent it along with WS to county court and DCB Legal or should I wait till hearing?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: XXXXXXX

Between

UK Parking Control Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

<My full name>

 (Defendant)

_________________

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

1. I am <my full name> of <my current address>, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.


2. In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

Facts and sequence of events

1. On <Date Removed> at approximately <Time Removed>, as driver of the vehicle registration <REG NO>, I entered the Opal Court car park adjacent to Wexham Park Hospital to collect books from a neighbouring flat. 

2. There were no illuminated signs or gated access at the entrance. The barrier was raised and the ticket machine broken, giving the impression that access was unrestricted (Exhibits 1 and 2). It was after dusk, and the Claimant’s signage was unlit, illegible in those conditions, in breach of British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice (Exhibits 3 and 4). The failure to display clear, legible signs rendered any purported contract unenforceable for want of adequate communication of its terms. 

3. The photographs published on Claimant’s own website are so dark and unclear that they fail to show where the vehicle was parked or display any legible signage indicating a potential £100 parking charge.

Exhibit 1: Opal Court - Raised barrier

Exhibit 2: Opal Court - Broken Ticket Machine

Exhibit 3: Opal Court - Unilluminated sign in breach of BPA Code of Practice

Exhibit 4: Opal Court - Unilluminated terms sign in breach of BPA Code of Practice

1. The Claimant's Particulars of Claim state that the contract was only available to “registered users”, yet no explanation is given as to what this term means, how a driver is to become “registered” or what “relevant obligation” was allegedly breached. Crucially, the signage does not offer anything of value or clarity to non-registered users. In the absence of an offer or clear terms, there can be no valid contract. The fundamental requirement of contract law - that both parties reach a “meeting of minds” and provide consideration - is entirely lacking in this case.

1. The vehicle was not parked on the land in question, but had momentarily stopped to collect books from a resident. At no point was the vehicle left unattended, indicating a brief stop rather than any form of parking. In Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, HHJ Harris held that a temporary stop for loading or collection purposes, where the driver remains with the vehicle, does not amount to “parking” in the contractual or ordinary sense. Accordingly, there was no breach of any parking condition and no contract was formed or contravened. This is further supported by dashcam footage from both front and rear cameras, where the presence of children and conversation is audible, confirming the vehicle remained occupied. The relevant footage is available at the following links:

Front dashcam footage: <Link removed but will send in actual witness statement> (size: 110 MB)

Rear dashcam footage: <Link removed but will send in actual witness statement> (size: 30 MB)

Dashcam footage links were submitted to POPLA during the appeals process. However, POPLA would only consider video evidence, if it was uploaded directly to their website. Due to POPLA website constraint of video files size limits, dashcam footage could not be submitted via their website. As a result, this crucial evidence - clearly demonstrating that the signage was unlit and illegible in the prevailing lighting conditions—was not considered. A decision was issued without taking this material evidence into account, despite its relevance to the core issue of whether the terms of any alleged contract were clearly communicated.

1. The Claimant has a well-documented history of misconduct that raises serious concerns about the integrity and reliability of their practices and evidence. This includes:

(i) A suspension by the DVLA for misuse of personal data, as reported by the Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-parking-control-dvla-suspension-misuse-of-data-a8325941.html

(ii) The alteration of photographic evidence in previous cases, for which the Claimant was formally sanctioned by the British Parking Association. Notably, BBC reports confirm that UK Parking Control Ltd admitted their staff had manipulated timestamped images to support unjustified charges:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-34402322 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-34220908 

In the present case, the Claimant has again demonstrated bad faith by misrepresenting the duration of stay. While the vehicle was onsite for only 9 minutes—a fact independently verified by a Google Maps timeline screenshot (Exhibit 5) - the Claimant has alleged a stay of 12 minutes and 3 seconds. This inflation of time follows the same pattern of conduct for which they have previously been sanctioned.

<Screenshot showing 9 mins stay removed as it had my home address in there on Google timeline>

Exhibit 5: Independent Google Maps Timeline screenshot - 9 minutes stay, not 12 minutes and 3 seconds.

Furthermore, the British Parking Association Code of Practice (Clauses 13.2 and 13.4) requires private parking operators to allow a reasonable grace period to enable drivers to read signage and decide whether to accept the terms. The standard across the industry is a minimum of 10 minutes. Similarly, Regulation 5(2A) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015—applicable to public car parks—establishes a statutory 10-minute grace period, reflecting the principle of reasonableness that should also be expected on private land.

1. Wexham Park Hospital official website confirms 20 minutes of free parking (Exhibit 6). This is highly relevant because the entrance to Opal Court’s car park is via the main Wexham Park Hospital entrance, and both car parks sit adjacent to one another within the same grounds. For first-time visitors including the defendant, this arrangement causes substantial confusion, particularly in the absence of clear signage, always raised barrier or demarcation at Opal Court. Defendant reviewed Wexham Park Hospital’s official parking information prior to visiting and reasonably understood that a 20-minute free parking period applied. Given that the stay lasted less than 10 minutes, this reinforces the view that the charge issued is both excessive and unjustified, and that no breach of contract occurred.

Exhibit 6: Wexham Park website screenshot, stating 20 minutes free Parking

Exaggerated claim

1. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot have exceeded £100 (the industry cap set out in the applicable Code of Practice at the time). I have seen no evidence that the added damages/fees are genuine.


2. I say that fees were not paid out or incurred by this Claimant, who is put to strict proof of:

• the alleged breach, and

• a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced quantum claim, including how interest has been calculated, which appears to have been applied improperly on the entire inflated sum, as if that figure was immediately overdue on the day of an alleged parking event.

1. This Claimant routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum (inexplicably added per PCN) despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban or substantially reduce the disproportionate 'Debt Fees'. This case is a classic example where the unjust enrichment of exaggerated fees encourages the 'numbers game' of inappropriate and out of control bulk litigation of weak/archive parking cases. No pre-action checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit, position of signs/the vehicle, or a proper cause of action.


2. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7th February 2022, here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice in which The Code's Ministerial Foreword was damning:


"Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

1. This Private Parking Code of Practice includes the following which supports my case:

• Annex B, Clause 3.2:

“A driver who stops a vehicle to allow a passenger to board or alight is not considered to be parking.” This directly applies in my case. The stop was brief and solely for the purpose of picking up books, and did not constitute ‘parking’ under the Code.

• Section 8.3:

“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” In my case, there was no clear or visible signage indicating any alleged contractual terms. Therefore, even if a contract was alleged, it could not be considered properly communicated.

• Annex B, Clause 9.3 (Keying Errors):

Although not applicable to this stop, this clause illustrates the Code's expectation of reasonable treatment for minor or inadvertent mistakes—highlighting that the industry should not operate in a punitive or rigid fashion.

1. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis, found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/a ttachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

1. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case.


2. With that sum in mind, it is clear that the extant claim has been enhanced by an excessive amount, disingenuously added as an extra 'fee'. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team and has been claimed in addition to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within the small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found - including in a notably detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery' and the Defendant takes that position.


3. The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains actually costs 'eight times less' (says the DLUHC analysis) than the price-fixed £70 per PCN routinely added. This has caused consumer harm in the form of hundreds of thousands of inflated CCJs each year that District Judges have been powerless to prevent. This abusively enhanced 'industry standard' Debt Fee was enabled only by virtue of the self- serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies, influenced by a Board of parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it.


4. In support of my contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus unrecoverable, attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'). Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template letter and 'would appear to be penal'.


5. This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs because the full parking charge (after expiry of discount) is already high and more than covers what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' business model that generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 or 5 letters in total, including pre-action phase reminders. The £85 parking charge was held to cover the 'costs of the operation' and the DLUHC's IA suggests it should still be the case that the parking charge itself more than covers the minor costs of pre-action stage, even if and when the Government reduces the level of parking charges.


6. Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, the majority of the clauses went unchallenged by the parking industry and it stands to become a creature of statute due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes. The DLUHC's Secretary of State mentions they are addressing 'market failure' more than once in the draft IA, a phrase which should be a clear steer for Courts in 2023 to scrutinise every aspect of claims like this one.


7. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable. It is also disproportionate and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

CRA breaches

1. Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the CRA which introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both contract terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of signage and all notices, letters and other communications intended to be read by the consumer.


2. Section 71 creates a duty upon courts to consider the test of fairness, including (but not limited to) whether all terms/notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the attention of a consumer. Signage must be prominent, plentiful, well-placed (and lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.


3. The CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying due regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the requirements for fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith).

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished

1. The Supreme Court clarified that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in parking cases, which must be determined on their own facts. That 'unique' case met a commercial justification test, given the location and clear signs with the charges in the largest/boldest text. Rather than causing other parking charges to be automatically justified, that case, in particular, the brief, conspicuous yellow & black warning signs - see EXHIBIT XXXX - set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.


2. Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations nor 'concealed pitfalls or traps'. (See EXHIBIT XXXX for paragraphs from ParkingEye v Beavis).


3. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a charge, include:


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

2. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2,

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


3. Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound, due to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space".

Conclusion

1. The claim is entirely without merit. The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out because knowingly enhanced parking claims like this one cause consumer harm on a grand scale.


2. There is now ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis surely makes that clear because it is now a matter of record that the industry has told the Government that 'debt recovery' costs eight times less than they have been claiming in almost every case.


3. In the matter of costs, the Defendant asks:

1. at the very least, for standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14,

and


2. for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

1. Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement 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.

Defendant’s signature:

Date: 15/07/2025