Help before court - thanks

Pshtiger2025

Hi All, new here please can you help? I am using your template as I have been sent a 'claim form' to go to civil national business center' my question is, do I need to use ALL the paragraphs? This is what I have got below so far, however when I am using the 'moneyclaim' website it wont accept as it is too long. Any help in what I should delete will be appreciated

I know it is stated that it is not necessary to include all paragraphs, but its hard not to as im asking which ones need to be removed.  

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').

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

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

 

3. DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT

i          The Defendant respectfully submits the following in response to the allegations regarding the alleged insufficient payment for parking.

ii         Upon arrival, the Defendant parked the vehicle in a legitimately available bay. Signage at the location indicated that payment could be made using the ‘Pay by Phone’ mobile application.

iii       Acting in good faith, the Defendant followed all instructions provided by the app to complete the payment process. The first step required the use of the app’s “nearby location” search function, which displayed only one location number along with the correct address corresponding to the parking bay. No alternative locations or options were presented.

iv       The Defendant selected the displayed location number and proceeded as instructed, entering the vehicle registration number, vehicle type, and description as prompted by the application.

v         The Defendant then selected the intended duration of stay. The app calculated and displayed the total amount due. The Defendant entered valid card details and completed payment for the amount requested by the app.

vi       At no point during the transaction did the app indicate a variance in charges based on vehicle type (e.g., van versus car), nor was any option presented to select a vehicle category that would affect the pricing. All requested information was provided truthfully and accurately.

vii     The Defendant contends that the mobile application was followed properly and in accordance with all visible instructions. Any fault or discrepancy lies with the app’s failure to distinguish pricing or notify the user of any such requirement.

viii   The Defendant therefore asserts that liability should not rest upon the user, who acted transparently and diligently, but rather upon the provider of the flawed and misleading payment system.

 

4. 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.

5. 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.


Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

6. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

7. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

8. This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).

9. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022: 

(HIDDEN LINK)

The Ministerial Foreword is damning: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists." 

10. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The then Government's analysis is found here: 

(HIDDEN LINK)

11. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true minor cost of pre-action stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN).

12. This claim has been enhanced by a disproportionate sum, believed to enrich the litigating legal team. It appears to be double recovery, duplicating the intended 'legal fees' cap set by small claims track rules. Further, claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3):

(HIDDEN LINK)

13. The draft IA shows that the intimidating letter-chains endured by Defendants cost 'eight times less' than the  fixed +£70 per PCN. This causes immense consumer harm in the form of some half a million wrongly-enhanced CCJs each year, that Judges are powerless to prevent.  MoJ statistics reveal several hundred thousand parking claims per annum, with c90% causing default CCJs totalling hundreds of millions of pounds. The false fee was enabled by the self-serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies who aligned in 2021 to allow +£70, each led by a Board comprising the parking and debt firms who stood to gain from it. 

14. The heads of alleged loss or purported 'contractually agreed' sums are unspecified and not adequately broken down, but it is denied that the added costs / damages sought were incurred. In this industry, debt collectors charge nothing when failing to collect parking charges.

15. A typical private PCN model comprises a series of demands that the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' and the parking charge itself is already inflated to generate a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 pre-action letters/reminders and the £85 PCN was held to more than cover the minor costs of the operation. This is less about genuine 'parking management' and more of a PCN-generating scheme, where debt demands are part of the regime.

16. Whilst the new Code is 'on hold' and not retrospective, the new MHCLG Secretary of State must still introduce a statutory Code of Practice according to the legislation already enacted. It is surely a clear steer for the Courts that the DLUHC said in 2023 that it is addressing 'market failure' and in 2025, the new Labour Government has pledged to resurrect the statutory Code with a Public Consultation expected within weeks. Statutory regulation will soon replace the BPA & IPC Code, so the clauses in the (temporarily stalled) February 2022 Code should bear significantly more weight than the industry's own self-serving version. 

17. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment.  Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' inflating a PCN to £135 exaggerated the cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'. That judgment was unaffected by Beavis and remains binding as the only authority covering the clear abuse of parking firms routinely adding imaginary 'admin /debt recovery' fees to further enhance a large parking charge.

18. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of POFA compliance, if they are relying upon 'keeper liability'.

19. The Defendant avers that there was no agreement to pay a parking charge or added 'damages' which were not even incurred, let alone quantified in bold, prominent text. This Claimant's lack of large, readable signs are nothing like the yellow & black warnings seen in Beavis, nor do they even meet the basic signage requirements in the current BPA & IPC Joint Code of Practice, which reflects the already statutory requirement for 'prominence' (Consumer Rights Act 2015 - the 'CRA').

CRA breach - lack of prominent terms

20. Section 71 CRA creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness whether a party raises it or not.

21. The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of 'signs & lines' and all communications (written or otherwise). Signs must be prominent (lit in hours of darkness/dusk and adequately positioned where terms are bound to be seen) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

22.  The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith).  

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished

23.  Unlike in Beavis, the penalty rule remains engaged. The CRA covers disproportionate sums, which are not exempt from being assessed for fairness because a 'fee' is not the core price term and neither was it prominently proclaimed on the signs.  

24. The Supreme Court held that deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from alleged breach.  The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms or cumbersome obligations ('concealed pitfalls or traps').  This Claimant has failed those tests, with small signs, hidden terms and minuscule small print that is incapable of binding a driver. Court of Appeal authorities about a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a parking charge include:

(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (Lord Denning's ‘red hand rule’) and

(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2,

both leading authorities that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

(iii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound, due to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space''. 

Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR

25. It is not accepted that this Claimant (an agent of a principal) had written authority from the landowner to offer and form contracts with drivers at this site, in their own right. Many parking operators merely act as agents (contracted to put signs up and issue charges 'on behalf of' the site landowner) and this Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to litigate.

26. The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or rules of law and reject most disputes: e.g. the IAS upheld appeals in a woeful average 5% of decided cases (ref: recent Annual IAS Reports). An impartial, fair appeals service was never on offer.

Conclusion

27. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm.  The July 2023 Government IA analysis shows (from data from this industry) that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it. The claim itself relies on an unfair charge which is entirely without merit, and should be dismissed.

28. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

29.  Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to claims allocated 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))."   

 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signature:

Date:

Nellymoser

I'll leave others to comment on your defence.

however when I am using the 'moneyclaim' website it wont accept as it is too long. Any help in what I should delete will be appreciated

Go back to the Template defence thread read again the section Submitting your defence:

Note: your defence is to be filed by you via email as suggested here: THE FIRST 12 STEPS:

Pshtiger2025

Great thanks, and do i leave all the other paragraphs in? some of them dont seem relevant and somewhat counter productive, for example, i am not talking about signage I am talking about the instructions in the app? 

Le_Kirk

You use all the paragraphs, adjusting only #2 & #3 as per instructions. BUT we don't need to see the complete defence template because it was written by @Coupon-mad and we don't need to check it and because we don't know which parts of it you have edited, added/deleted.  When you get editing rights, can you please delete all of it apart from your paragraphs 2 & 3.

1505grandad

"... I have been sent a 'claim form'...."

Please post a copy  -  redacted  -  of the form  -  keep all dates showing.

Pshtiger2025

ok, will do  - 

still im confused - just need a straight answer. 

Irrespective of defence,  all people should use all paragraphs, in all situations - they only bit they change is paragraph 2 and 3. 

In other words all defences should have the 30 odd paragraphs as per the template. 

Thanks

Pshtiger2025

Here is the image as requested

Gr1pr

Simple answer, YES you use the complete defence template,  around 30 paragraphs,  regardless of your views about some of it,  a win is a win regardless of the mechanism, signage,  no landowner authority,  those are the main topics that win cases

You only adapt paragraphs 2 & 3 to rebut the POC on the lower left of the claim form 

Cant see the issue date due to over zealous redactions,  can't see the name of the claimant or lawyers, cant see the POC either,  so your redacted picture doesn't help us to help you 

Post the issue date and the date when you completed the AOS online on MCOL 

Don't try to file a defence on MCOL 

You email the final pdf document to the CNBC in Northampton,  not on MCOL,  not by post  ( only email   )

Coupon-mad

Pshtiger2025 said:

ok, will do  - 

still im confused - just need a straight answer. 

Irrespective of defence,  all people should use all paragraphs, in all situations - they only bit they change is paragraph 2 and 3. 

In other words all defences should have the 30 odd paragraphs as per the template. 

Thanks

Yes.

We need to see the Claimant, the date of issue and the POC please.  

Pshtiger2025

ok thanks, will redo the image, just wasnt sure what i should or shouldnt show you...... seems a touchy subject, showing too much or too little..... 

Pshtiger2025

Hoping i have it correct this time, thanks for your help......