Defence Feedback Needed - PCN Holiday Inn London Shepperton - Parking Eye

crystal545454

Hi all,

I've recieved a county court claim regarding a PCN issued at Holiday Inn London Shepperton on 27/12/2023. I would appreciate any feedback on the defence I've drafted below based on the helpful advice on this forum.As requested I have only pasted the first 4 paragraphs for review.

I have already submitted a AoS on 29th March 2025.

Particulars of Claim:

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle XXXXXX at Holiday Inn London Shepperton.

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 27/12/2023

3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Vehicle Remained On Private Property In Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms And Conditions

4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.03 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Between

PARKING EYE LTD

(Claimant) 

- and -  

xxxxxxxxxx

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authorities:

3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage:

Link to the two authorities: [linked cases]

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  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.

6. The final notice letter, dated 31st May 2024, was received on 8th June 2024 by the defendant. This was the first correspondence received by the defendant regarding this case for the PNC issued on 27th December 2023. The letter was forwarded to the defendant by the new owner of the defendants previous property, which the defendant had moved from several months prior.

Following this letter the defendant was in communication with XXX, the manager of the Holiday Inn London-Shepperton Leisure Club where the parking charge was issued. XXX confirmed that the defendant had input their vehicle registration number correctly on the day of the visit. However, XXX explained that often the system does not work as intended, and this issue has occurred previously. XXX is happy to provide confirmation of this if needed. They can be contacted at:

• Email: XXX

• Phone: XXX

Additionally, since the defendant did not receive any previous notices, they were unaware of the opportunity to rectify the situation at the time. XXX stated that if the defendant had been notified sooner, the fine would have been cancelled directly by the Leisure Centre. However the final notice was received after the rectification period had passed.

7. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

8. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.
---------------------

Many thanks.

Coupon-mad

Good research - yep Chan & Akande apply.

Remove this because the court doesn't contact third parties! That's not how court works. It will be down to you to gather evidence (emails, case authorities and photos) at WS stage in the Summer:

XXX is happy to provide confirmation of this if needed. They can be contacted at:
Email: XXX
Phone: XXX
Additionally, since the defendant did not receive any previous notices, they were unaware of the opportunity to rectify the situation at the time. XXX stated that if the defendant had been notified sooner, the fine would have been cancelled directly by the Leisure Centre. However the final notice was received after the rectification period had passed.

The rest is great but all paragraphs require a number. Obviously renumber the template defence (normally para 4 onwards)  to suit.

1505grandad

"PARKING EYE LTD"

Just checking  -  does the claim form state the claimant's name as one word?

crystal545454

Thanks for your feedback, very helpful.