Asda - G24 - DCBL - Letter of claim

muslimahi · 15 July at 12:02AM

I think I'm going crazy - I have no idea where I pasted that from as you're right template one is as below:

I cant fit any of paragraph 12 into MCOL space so I will have to edit it significantly.

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 Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the allegation or the heads of cost. The Defendant denies liability for the inflated sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract, there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the limited information available, this case appears to be no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs and the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided. However, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

The facts known to the Defendant:

3. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a claim for parking on 19/10/2024 for a sum of £170 further claiming that the defendant failed to pay for parking. The Claimant further seeks additional unwarranted damages, interest and costs. 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 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 confirmed that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

4. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 19/10/24, as alleged and neither was a PCN received. 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.

5.The driver was a genuine Asda customer, evidenced by a bank statement submitted to Asda multiple times. The car park allowed 2hr of free parking for customers. If entering a registration at checkout was required, this was not clearly stated. The Claimant has provided no evidence of such notice. No PCN was received by the Defendant; the first contact was a Final Notice dated 28/11/2024. Repeated attempts to resolve this with Asda were deflected to the parking firm. No POPLA code was ever offered, denying the Defendant a fair appeal process.

6. To form a contract, there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that the Claimant typically uses unclear and unfair terms, and this case appears no different. The contract wording has never been disclosed; the Claimant is put to strict proof with dated photographs. The Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if such terms are later provided. If registration was a condition of free parking, it must have been clearly stated at the point of contract. Without such clarity, no breach arises. The Court is invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4. The vehicle is recognised, and the Defendant confirms they were the registered keeper.

6. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written agreement from the landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to sue under a landowner contract and the terms/scope and dates/details of the parking management service, including the contract itself, all updates and schedules and a map of the site boundary as set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps mock-up).

7. In order to impose a parking charge, as well as proving that the driver breached an obligation, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any relevant obligation(s) and of the charge itself. None of these requirements have been demonstrated and this charge is a penalty. ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 is fully distinguished. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis and also to ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) a finding unaffected by Beavis. In Somerfield, HHJ Hegarty (whose decision was ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' further inflating a £75 (discounted to £37.50) parking charge to £135 was disproportionate to the minor cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. On 11th July 2025 a Public Consultation by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘MHCLG’) began. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 will finally curb the unjust enrichment of the parking industry and debt recovery agents (DRAs). Banning DRA fees (mirroring the approach of the last Government, which called DRA fees ‘extorting money from motorists’) appears likely. The MHCLG have identified that the added sums are not part of the parking related charges: ‘profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than the profits reported 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. The claim exceeds the current Code of Practice £100 maximum parking charge without justification or explanation. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') it also exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recoverable; the explanatory notes to s4 (5) and (6) state at para 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)).’’

10. The Claimant is put to proof of POFA and Code of Practice compliance. It is denied that any DRA sums are due, nor interest (the delay lies with the Claimant and interest should be disallowed).

11. The delay in litigation has made retrieving material documents/evidence impossible for the Defendant, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks standard witness costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant, opening up further costs (CPR 46.5).

12. The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst a Claimant is liable for a Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply 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)).’ It is submitted that a definition of unreasonableness encompasses an intention to discontinue that has been present since the start, as may be stipulated in any contractual relationship between the parking company and bulk litigator.

muslimahi · 15 July at 12:48AM

After lots of time spent editing, this is what I can fit into MCOL. Please kindly advise if this is good enough

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 Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the

allegation or the heads of cost. The Defendant denies liability

for the inflated sum claimed, or at all.

2.It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the

Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract,

there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable

consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver

breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

(‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the

test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for

prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and

paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of

fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this

Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the

limited information available, this case appears to be no

different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with

contemporaneous photographs and the Defendant reserves the right

to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided.

However, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its

powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

3.The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own

knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a

claim for parking on 19/10/2024 for a sum of £170 further claiming

that the defendant failed to pay for parking. The Claimant further

seeks additional unwarranted damages, interest and costs. 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 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 confirmed

that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

4.Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 -4 are denied. The Defendant

is not indebted to the Claimant nor accepts that a contravention

occurred on 19/10/24, as alleged. Whilst the Defendant is the

registered keeper, no evidence of a breach of prominent terms can

be seen for liability. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN

can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred.

5.The driver was a genuine Asda customer, evidenced by bank

statement allowing 2 hours free parking. If entering a

registration was required, it was not made clear. No PCN was

received; the first contact was a Final Notice dated 28/11/2024.

The Defendant tried to resolve this with Asda but was deflected to

the parking firm. No POPLA code was offered, denying a fair appeal

process.

6. To form a contract, there must be a prominent offer,

acceptance, and consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied t

that any term was breached. Under s71 of the Consumer Rights Act

2015 (CRA), creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the

test of fairness. Pursuant to new requirements of s62 and paying

regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of

fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that the

Claimant typically uses unclear and unfair terms, and this case

appears no different. The contract wording has never been

disclosed; the Claimant is put to strict proof with dated

photographs. The Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence

if such terms are later provided. If registration was a condition

of free parking, it must have been clearly stated at the point of

contract. Without such clarity, no breach arises. The Court is

invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4.

7. DVLA keeper data is only disclosed with the landowner’s written

authority. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing

to sue under a landowner contract and the terms/scope and

dates/details of the parking management service, including the

contract itself, all updates and schedules and a map of the site

boundary as set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps

mock-up).

8. In order to impose a parking charge, as well as proving that

the driver breached an obligation, there must be: (i) a strong

'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss,

and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any relevant obligation(s) and of

the charge itself. None of these requirements have been

demonstrated and this charge is a penalty. ParkingEye v Beavis

[2015] UKSC67 is fully distinguished. Attention is drawn to paras

98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis and also to ParkingEye Ltd v

Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) a finding

unaffected by Beavis. In Somerfield, HHJ Hegarty (whose decision

was ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs'

further inflating a £75 (discounted to £37.50) parking charge to

£135 was disproportionate to the minor cost of template letters

and 'would appear to be penal'.

9. On 11 July 2025, MHCLG launched a Public Consultation following

the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019. It will finally curb the

unjust enrichment of the parking industry and debt recovery agents

(DRAs). Banning DRA fees (mirroring the approach of the last

Government, which called DRA fees ‘extorting money from

motorists’) appears likely. The MHCLG have identified that the

added sums are not part of the parking related charges: ‘profit

being made by DRAs is significantly higher than the profits

reported 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’.

10. The claim exceeds the current Code of Practice £100 maximum

parking charge without justification or explanation. Pursuant to

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') it also

exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recoverable; the explanatory notes to s4

(5) and (6) state at para 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)).’

11. The Claimant is put to proof of POFA and Code of Practice

compliance. It is denied that any DRA sums are due, nor interest

(the delay lies with the Claimant)

12. The delay in litigation has made retrieving material

documents/evidence impossible for the Defendant, which is highly

prejudicial. The Defendant seeks standard witness costs (CPR

27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant,

opening up further costs (CPR 46.5).

13. The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk

parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance.

Whilst a Claimant is liable for a Defendant's costs after

discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to the

small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states

(annotation 38.6.1): ‘the normal rule as to costs does not apply …

although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a

party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg)).’ It is submitted

that unreasonable conduct includes a pre-planned intention to

discontinue, possibly rooted in the Claimant's contract with their

bulk litigator.

Coupon-mad · 15 July at 1:01AM

Why didn't you just remove this which is clearly a repetition of para 1?

"3.The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a claim for parking on 19/10/2024 for a sum of £170 further claiming that the defendant failed to pay for parking. The Claimant further seeks additional unwarranted damages, interest and costs. 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’. "

muslimahi · 15 July at 1:30AM

Coupon-mad said:

Why didn't you just remove this which is clearly a repetition of para 1?

"3.The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a claim for parking on 19/10/2024 for a sum of £170 further claiming that the defendant failed to pay for parking. The Claimant further seeks additional unwarranted damages, interest and costs. 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’. "

I've gone fully mad. I also repeated para 6. This now fits with 6 lines to spare!!

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 Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the allegation or the heads of cost. The Defendant denies liability for the inflated sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract, there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the limited information available, this case appears to be no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs and the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided. If registration was a condition of free parking, it must have been clearly stated at the point of contract. Without such clarity, no breach arises. The Court is invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4. The vehicle is recognised, and the Defendant confirms they were the registered keeper.

The facts known to the Defendant:

3. 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 confirmed that the Defendant was the registered keeper.