Re: County Court Claim - UKPC

hsadat

Hi everyone,

I received two PCNs October 2024, one week apart, for parking at Victoria Retail Park in Ruislip while attending PureGym. I had been using the gym for months without any issues before they introduced a terminal to register car registrations for gym users. Unfortunately, I wasn’t aware of this change at the time.

After doing extensive research, I appealed both fines to POPLA, but my appeals were unsuccessful. The rejection letters were identical and issued by the same assessor, meaning I now face a total fine of £200.

A staff member at the gym suggested that I contact the parking company (PPC) and provide them with entry logs from the gym to prove I was a legitimate user. However, I’m concerned that it might be too late for this approach.

What would you recommend as my next steps? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Below is copy of the outcome. 

Thanks in advance!

Decision - Unsuccessful

Assessor Name - Rebecca Appleton

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) as the vehicle was present on site during the restricted no parking period.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. •They are the keeper of the vehicle and as the keeper they are not liable for the alleged parking charge. •The notice fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. •The appellant raises Parking Eye vs Beavis and the Consumer Rights Act 2015. •The appellant raises Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106. •No landowner authority had been provided. •The signs in the car park are not prominent clear or legible from all parking spaces. •There is insufficient notice of the sum of the charge and fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal and states the operator has altered its evidence in relation to adding the hours ’21:30 -07:30’ The appellant has provided 1.Links to information in relation to text size. 2.Photos of the car park. 3.Appeal letter. 4.Link to information relating to Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106. The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

Firstly, I note that the appellant has raised more than one appeal with POPLA. I must advise that POPLA assess all appeals on an impartial case by case basis and as such each PCN must be appealed by the motorist separately. In this instance I am only assessing the appeal for POPLA code: 8653204154 which was issued to PCN number 9297724281418. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. 

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. Both the operator and the appellant have provided photos of the signage on site. The signs states there is a maximum stay of 3 hours however no parking is allowed between the hours of 21:30 and 07:30. Failure to comply with the terms will result in the issue of a £100 parking charge notice. The driver entered the car park at 20:23 and remained on site until 21:44. During the no parking hours. As the driver remained on site between the hours of 21:30 to 21:44 a parking charge notice was issued. The appellant says the signs in the car park are not prominent clear or legible from all parking spaces. The appellant has provided website links to information relating to text size. I must advise that due to our own security processes we are unable to access any third party websites and as such I have not reviewed these websites when considering the appeal. 

The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. section 19.2 of the BPA code of practice which states: “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use” Having reviewed the signage within provided by both parties, I am satisfied that the signs have met the requirements of section 19.2. this is because it is shown that there is an entrance sign displayed on the entrance to the car park, which the driver had the opportunity to see on entry to the car park. This sign advised them to read the further terms and conditions within the car park. Therefore, it was down to the driver to read the further terms and conditions within the car park itself. 

In the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, paragraph 19.3 states: “signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including the parking charges. You must place signage containing the specific parking terms throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving.” Paragraph 19.3 also explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” Appendix B of the British Parking Association Code of Practice explains that, “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when the parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting in the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual”. When parking on private land the driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage on display at the site and the site map, I am satisfied the driver was afforded this opportunity and as per the evidence provided the signage is clear. I note the appellant has commented on how the operator has altered the images however in this case I must take all evidence on face value. As I am not in receipt of sufficient evidence to support the images provided have been altered I cannot conclude that they have been in this case. 

The appellant says there is insufficient notice of the sum of the charge and fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant raises Parking Eye vs Beavis and the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The appellant has also referred to Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106. The appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The fairness of parking charges was considered more broadly by the Supreme Court in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis. The court found that the charge was not unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations because the charge was no higher than to achieve the operator's objective of effectively managing the car park. It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage. The Court made it clear that the same considerations that means it was not a penalty also mean it is not unfair. With that in mind, to conclude whether it is unfair according to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, I have to take into account the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. 

The appellant says no landowner authority had been provided. The operator has provided a witness statement document, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice advises that POPLA will accept witness statements in place of full landowner agreement contracts. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires, and therefore I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. Having review both the appellants grounds of appeal and the comments raised, I conclude that the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met and the operator has issued the PCN correctly, as such the appeal is refused.

Coupon-mad

Show us pics of the hidden terminal inside, and signs beside it. Surely PEye supplied that evidence to POPLA?

And pics of the outside t&cs too?

I'm confused that the Assessor made no mention of the keypad or extended stay you get if keying in your VRM. Did your appeal make it clear that's what you were appealing about?

hsadat

Coupon-mad said:

Show us pics of the hidden terminal inside, and signs beside it. Surely PEye supplied that evidence to POPLA?

And pics of the outside t&cs too?

I'm confused that the Assessor made no mention of the keypad or extended stay you get if keying in your VRM. Did your appeal make it clear that's what you were appealing about?

The gym first opened in February 2024, and I joined at that time. However, they initially didn’t have the entry terminals installed—they were only added around September 2024, if I recall correctly. During the period before their installation, I never had to use them.

Unfortunately, I didn’t realise the terminals had been installed, so I continued using the gym as usual without registering my car. As a result, I received two fines. In my appeal, I mistakenly didn’t mention anything about the terminals, as I focused solely on the existing templates and appeals.

I plan to visit the gym tomorrow to take photos of the terminals and the posted terms and conditions outside.

Coupon-mad

Get lots of pics, especially inside, as in my experience all you tend to get is a crappy A4 piece of paper. Nothing to really draw your attention.

Please get good evidence of that.

Are you saying the PPC DIDN'T attach proof of the keypads nor talk about that? They only accused you of an overstay that didn't happen?

Do you think your appeal could have been clearer? It seems like the Assessor wasn't told that the appeal was about a hidden keypad.

hsadat

Coupon-mad said:

Get lots of pics, especially inside, as in my experience all you tend to get is a crappy A4 piece of paper. Nothing to really draw your attention.

Please get good evidence of that.

Are you saying ParkingEye DIDN'T attach proof of the keypads nor talk about that? They only accused you of an overstay that didn't happen?

Do you think your appeal could have been clearer? It seems like the Assessor wasn't told that the appeal was about a hidden keypad.

Hi, I’d like to break this down by providing both copies of the alleged violation from UKPC.





According to them, the term I violated was 'No parking between 21:30 and 07:30,' as stated on the signage. However, the text is incredibly small, as shown in the photos below, and difficult to see from a distance.







Here's a photo of the terminals inside.




The main focus of my appeal was the inadequate and barely visible signage, which I thought I made very clear when appealing to POPLA. Unfortunately, I didn’t mention anything about the terminals inside and assumed that my argument about the small print stating 'No parking between 21:30 and 07:30' would be enough for them to understand. I’d also like to add that I have the login data from both occasions when I visited the gym. Let me know what you think. Many thanks

Coupon-mad

How come the signs don't mention Pure Gym's extended stay offer or the keypad system? UKPC's 'no parking after 9.30pm' terms are impossible to comply with for any gym member!

I guess Pure Gym is quite new to this site?

The fact is, there's now an alternative contract after 9.30pm and the UKPC signs fail to mention it. That alternative offer is completely the opposite of UKPC's terms, which need updating.

Pure Gym's new alternative offer: 'free parking even after 9.30pm' is offered clearly on a banner and there's no caveat that says you "agree to pay £100" if you don't use the keypad blocked by the bins!  The banner also doesn't mention UKPC do your contract was with PureGym.

Get your MP to complain to the landowner that the terms at PureGym are not reflected on the contractual signs. Why not? The property agent needs to insist UKPC change the incorrect signs.

hsadat

Hey Guys so I received Count Court Claim letter  letter and here is my defence. Any guidance for improvement would be much appreciated. Thanks


Defence

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to two alleged debts arising from the driver's alleged breaches of contract on 01/10/2024 and 07/10/2024, which are denied. It is further denied that there was ever any agreement to pay the Claimant two punitive £100 'parking charge notices' (PCNs) for the lawful conduct described below.

2. The allegation appears to be that the vehicle was “not authorised to use the car park” because UKPC’s ANPR cameras recorded it entering and exiting Victoria Road Retail Park on. These images merely show the vehicle in transit and are not evidence of “no authorisation” or that the driver was not a genuine patron.

3. The Defendant was a paying and legitimate member of PureGym Victoria Road Retail Park on the material dates (01/10/2024 and 07/10/2024) and has contemporaneous proof of entry codes for both visits. The vehicle was parked solely for the purpose of attending the gym, within the general 3-hour free parking period advertised by PureGym.

4. The signage exhibited by the Claimant does not inform drivers that after 21:30 a separate registration process is required on a terminal inside the gym. The sign merely states “No parking between 21:30 and 07:30”, which is ambiguous when viewed alongside PureGym’s large and prominent “FREE PARKING – 3 HOURS MAXIMUM STAY” signage. The Defendant avers that no clear contractual term was communicated that parking shortly after 21:30, while using the gym, would trigger a penalty absent registration.

5. The requirement to register a vehicle on an indoor terminal was a new and inadequately communicated term introduced around the time of the alleged events. The Claimant failed to ensure that this material change was reasonably brought to the attention of genuine patrons, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Schedule 2, paragraphs 10 and 14) and the British Parking Association Code of Practice (section 19.3).

6. The Defendant relies on the doctrine of estoppel: PureGym’s own signage and marketing promised three hours of free parking for members. The Defendant reasonably relied on this representation to their detriment. It is unconscionable for the Claimant to profit from this ambiguity and pursue a punitive charge when the Defendant acted as a genuine customer of the site’s principal tenant.

7. Any alleged contravention occurred because the Claimant failed to provide clear, prominent, and specific notice of the obligation to input vehicle details after 21:30. As in Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106, a driver cannot be bound by terms they were not aware of. The Defendant therefore denies that any enforceable contract was formed.

8. Any alleged contravention occurred because the Claimant failed to provide clear, prominent, and specific notice of the obligation to input vehicle details after 21:30. As in Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106, a driver cannot be bound by terms they were not aware of. The Defendant therefore denies that any enforceable contract was formed.

9. Further, contemporaneous advice from consumer experts confirms that UKPC’s own signage fails to mention PureGym’s alternative parking offer or the newly introduced keypad system. The UKPC sign merely states “No parking between 21:30 and 07:30” and provides no instruction that gym members must use an internal keypad. This renders the terms impossible to comply with for any PureGym patron who reasonably relies on PureGym’s representations.

10. PureGym was newly established on this site at the relevant time and had publicly promoted “free parking even after 9:30 pm” on a prominent banner inside the premises. There was no accompanying caveat or warning that failing to input a registration number on a small, obscurely placed terminal would incur a £100 penalty. Consequently, an alternative contract existed between PureGym and its members, which was completely inconsistent with UKPC’s signage.

11. In these circumstances, the Defendant avers that any contract to park was formed directly with PureGym as principal, not with UKPC. The Claimant’s failure to update or coordinate its signage to reflect PureGym’s extended-stay arrangement creates ambiguity. As per contra proferentem, any such ambiguity must be interpreted in the Defendant’s favour.

12. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.

13. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

14. The claimant cannot overrule the rights of way and easements of the lease or introduce any new terms or charges subsequent to the permit agreement, as made when the permit was accepted by the resident.

15. Parking terms cannot be re-offered by a third party contractor on a day-to-day basis (on far more onerous and potentially, completely variable terms) because these were never incorporated into the permission to park as granted by the landowner, which was a stand-alone contract, concluded at the point in time of the provision of a permit which carried very few terms of use and no 'parking charges' nor 'indemnity costs'.

16. In the event that the court finds a contract based on signage can supersede the permit terms already agreed and the lease, I put the claimant to strict proof of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this claimant which enable these charges to be pursued in court by this contractor, for these alleged contravention(s), whatever they may be.

17. The alleged debt(s) as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

18. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA), a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (a sum which is less than the claim). This depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts.

19. It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

20. Notwithstanding the provisions of the POFA and/or the existing easements, rights of way and the permit agreement already concluded, it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event.

21. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs or even their unlawful, fixed sum card surcharge for payments - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the resident in the first instance.

22. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.

23. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

24. The costs on the claim are both disproportionate and disingenuous

- CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –

(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and

(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

25. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

26. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

28. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

29. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

30. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

31. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:

''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

32. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

33. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

34. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

Coupon-mad

That won't fit in the MCOL box which allows only 122 lines. Easier for you to use the Template Defence (which does fit) and save the detail for your later Witness Statement.

hsadat

Coupon-mad said:

That won't fit in the MCOL box which allows only 122 lines. Easier for you to use the Template Defence (which does fit) and save the detail for your later Witness Statement.

Ok thank you, how is this instead. Also heres what they said for the POC bit. Just want to make sure I'm doing it right, any changes are welcome 

POC
1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) (PC) issued to vehicle ------ at Victoria Road Retail Park - Phase 1, Middlesex, HA4 OAJ.
2. The dates of contravention are 01/10/2024, 07/10/2024 and the D was issued with PC(s) by the Claimant
3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: No Parking Out Of Hours.
4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £340.00 being the total of the PC(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8.00% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.04 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees



Defence 

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). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

3. On 01/10/2024 and 07/10/2024, the Defendant, a paying member of PureGym Victoria Road Retail Park, parked solely to attend the gym. PureGym had only recently introduced a keypad registration system after 21:30, but UKPC’s signage failed to mention this requirement or PureGym’s clearly advertised “free parking even after 9:30 pm” offer. The keypad was obscurely placed and not reasonably visible. The Defendant has contemporaneous proof of gym entry codes for both visits, demonstrating legitimate use of the site. The Claimant’s ambiguous and outdated signage made compliance impossible for genuine gym patrons and failed to form a fair or transparent contract.

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. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: '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))'.

Car1980

On 01/10/2024 and 07/10/2024, the Defendant, a paying member of PureGym Victoria Road Retail Park, parked solely to attend the gym. The Claimant's signage and therefore their contract makes absolutely no mention of the requirement to use a tablet device to enter a VRM. Inside the gym there is a tablet installed on the wall but no accompanying signage installed by the Claimant and there is absolutely nothing contractual in nature on the premises to bind the two parties into any sort of agreement.

Be careful because there is a massive roller banner instructing you to use the tablet. But it is legally irrelevant because it is nothing to do with the Claimant and it is not a contract.

The claim is simply based on a contract between you and UKPC, so the landowner's signage is rather irrelevant - if it helps your case (wink).

So maybe use this blurb instead?

Car1980

The Claimant particulars state they are owed the amount claimed solely based on a contractual term on their sign, which states "No parking between 21.30 and 7.30pm". This constitutes a "forbidding contract" where no offer actually exists and no consideration could be exchanged. Secondly, it is also voided under the doctrine of impracticability. Nobody is permitted to visit the gym between these times according to the Claimant.

You also need to stick this in.