PPS private parking solutions - PCN issued whilst passengers in the car

Rickerdoom

Thank you, that's reassuring. Yes, it was parked for less than 1 minute as per their timestamps. They were so sly they didn't even show face or stick the ticket on the screen.

Coupon-mad

And as I asked already:

Please show the PCN with the two photos they took, with times visible.

Rickerdoom

Hi

Sorry @Coupon-mad, here are all the time stamps that i sent to POPLA - I can't find the actual photos. I checked private parking solution website for photos and it doesn't show up, and I didn't save the images from their website. Will this be an issue?

I've now unfortunetly received the claim form which states "You must respond to the claim before the response date on the enclosed form" but there is no date on the enclosde form. It has the N1SDR claim form, N9A (SDT) and N9B (SDT). It also states that i can respond to the claim on moneyclaim.gov.uk

I will complete the N9B form but wondered how I should structure my defence? thank you for all the help in advance.

Le_Kirk

You don't complete any forms, this is all done online via MCOL using your Government Gateway Account! Check the Template defence thread

Rickerdoom

Hi,

This is my defence draft that I will submit. I would be grateful if anyone could please let me know if I should edit anything?

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or to any sum at all. In particular, any additional sum added to the original Parking Charge is disputed. The original parking charge was intended to cover the costs associated with operating and enforcing the parking scheme. Adding further sums for the same collection activity amounts to double recovery and the Defendant denies that such additional sums are recoverable.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the material time. The Defendant has not admitted to being the driver and the identity of the driver has not been disclosed. If the Claimant seeks to hold the Defendant liable as registered keeper rather than proving that the Defendant was the driver, the Claimant is put to strict proof that the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') have been fully complied with.

3. The parking charge concerns an allegation that the vehicle was causing an obstruction. The Claimant's own photographs cover a period of only one minute and seven seconds, from 14:45:16 to 14:46:23 on 3 March 2025. This is only a brief snapshot and does not establish when the vehicle arrived, how long it remained there, how long any alleged obstruction lasted, or at what point any contract was supposedly accepted. Even if the vehicle appears unattended during those photographs, this does not establish those matters. The Defendant also disputes that the relevant term concerning obstruction, together with the £100 charge for an alleged breach, was sufficiently clear and prominent to have been properly brought to the driver's attention before any alleged acceptance of the parking terms.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that any contractual term was breached. For a parking contract to be formed there must first be an offer, acceptance and consideration. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 also requires consumer terms and notices to be fair and transparent, and section 71 requires the Court to consider the fairness of relevant consumer terms. In particular, important or onerous terms must be sufficiently prominent and clear. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof of the wording, positioning and appearance of the signs as they stood at the material time, including the prominence of the £100 charge and the specific term relied upon concerning obstruction.

5. The Claimant is an agent rather than the landowner and is therefore put to strict proof of its standing to bring this claim. Although a landowner agreement is said to exist, the Defendant requires the Claimant to prove the terms, scope and dates of the agreement in force at the material time, including the relevant site boundaries and that the agreement authorised the Claimant both to impose the particular parking charge relied upon and to pursue such charges through court proceedings in its own name.

6. In addition to proving a breach, the Claimant must establish a legitimate interest sufficient to justify the parking charge and adequate notice of both the charge and the obligation said to have been breached. The facts of this case are materially different from those in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the Supreme Court placed considerable importance on the prominent and clear signage and the particular legitimate interests operating at that site. The Defendant disputes that comparable notice of the relevant term and £100 charge has been demonstrated in this case.

7. Further, the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis treated the parking charge itself as covering the costs of operating the parking scheme and enforcing parking charges. The Defendant therefore disputes any attempt to recover the same costs again by adding a separate debt recovery, administration or similar fee. The reasoning in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB) also supports the position that disproportionate additional sums added to a parking charge through a routine letter chain may be penal and unrecoverable.

8. Parliament enacted the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 because of concerns regarding standards in the private parking industry. The Government has subsequently consulted on matters including private parking charges and debt recovery fees. The Defendant submits that the Claimant must establish a proper contractual and legal basis for every element of the amount now claimed and cannot simply rely upon an additional sum having been added during the debt recovery process.

9. Further and in any event, where the Claimant relies upon keeper liability under Schedule 4 of POFA, paragraph 4(5) provides that the maximum sum recoverable from the registered keeper is the amount of the unpaid parking charge specified in the relevant notice. Accordingly, insofar as this claim seeks additional sums from the Defendant as registered keeper, those sums are denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof of their legal basis.

10. The Defendant respectfully asks the Court to dismiss the claim. The Defendant also seeks the ordinary costs available under CPR 27.14 and, should the Court find that the Claimant has acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting the proceedings, any further costs which the Court considers appropriate under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

Coupon-mad

That isn't the Template Defence in the thread of that name. Go and read post 2 of the NEWBIES thread now, and find the template.

From those time-stamps it looks like they captured the vehicle for just 1 minute seven seconds?!

Rickerdoom

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82150783#Comment_82150783

Thank you, apologies but i'm a bit confused because i read post two and it provides the link to the template which I followed:

Is there another template i should be using?

Yes, that's right they captured the vehicle for 1min 7s, and they took pictures from a distance. They did not place the ticket on the window because they would've realised that the vehicle was not parked, and passangers were present in the car.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/template-defence-suggestion-nb-ultimately-your-choice-of-defence-wording-is-your-own

Coupon-mad

I don't understand. Obviously that's the Template Defence thread but you didn't use it. You must read page one, not some random later comment which I think you must have?

Show us the Claim Form first though.

Rickerdoom

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82158620#Comment_82158620

yes sorry I'm a bit confused i thought I've used the template especially the 2nd post on that thread. Which part of the template should I add?

Coupon-mad

We can tell those 10 paragraphs don't match the template. Use the template.