C.U.P Enforcement POPLA Appeal

Wade_Barrett

hey guys hope you're all doing great! so I've been receiving the 'bailiff' letters from dcbl and today received a court claim form:

been reading the newbie thread and will set up on MCOL now to acknowledge service. any other help or guidance much appreciated, thanks

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 15/10/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 20/10/25 and before 03/11/25

your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 17/11/25

Wade_Barrett

Le_Kirk said:

With an issue date of 15/10/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 20/10/25 and before 03/11/25

your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 17/11/25

thank you, I completed AoS today. For the 3rd paragraph of the defence, do I just state the main points from the POPLA appeal?

Thank you

Le_Kirk

Your defence paragraph #3 needs to answer the alleged breach in the POC, which then slots into the template defence.  Were you parked as they claim?

Wade_Barrett

yes, but my vehicle had an electrical issue for which I was there at euro car parts to buy a new car battery. I wasn't able to select reverse gear at the time so parked it in a safe place away from other cars, but they are saying I was blocking a footpath...also, their signs are ridiculous, how they expect people to see them is beyond me

Le_Kirk

Have a read of Jopson v Homeguard; you were dealing with a small vicissitude.

Wade_Barrett

Le_Kirk said:

Have a read of Jopson v Homeguard; you were dealing with a small vicissitude.

Thank you! What do you think of this as my paragraph 3, would appreciate your input:

The Defendant denies any breach of contract. On the material date, the vehicle suffered a sudden and unforeseen electrical and gearbox fault, preventing it from being parked in a bay. The vehicle was stopped safely and temporarily within the estate while the issue was rectified. This short and unavoidable stop was a matter of necessity and safety — a minor vicissitude — and does not amount to “parking” within the meaning of the terms alleged. This position is supported by the persuasive authority of Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, where HHJ Harris QC confirmed that brief stops to deal with unexpected events (such as deliveries, loading, or mechanical issues) are not considered “parking” for the purpose of enforcement. The Defendant’s actions were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

The Defendant further submits that no driver was identified in any correspondence, and therefore liability cannot be transferred to the keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”), as the Notice to Keeper failed to specify the required period of parking as mandated under paragraph 9(2)(a). Consequently, the Claimant has no lawful basis to pursue the Defendant for the alleged charge.

Additionally, the Claimant’s signage was inadequate, unclear, and incapable of forming a binding contract. The Defendant’s evidence (previously provided in the POPLA appeal) shows a complete absence of clear signage near the location where the vehicle was stopped, with CUP Enforcement relying on distant and outdated photos of signs taken months prior to the incident. Therefore, the Defendant was not afforded adequate notice of any contractual terms, as required under both POFA 2012 and the BPA Code of Practice.