Euro Car Parks DCB legal response to 1st email template

Gr1pr

And, do not use double quote marks or any arrows, so not these  " < >

Moo138

So I thought I would put section 3 of my defence into Grok AI And ask it to improve it, What do you think of its response? It did actually include your paragraph about parking period Too.

The Defendant’s Vehicle Was Stopped, Not Parked, for the Purpose of Dropping Off a Passenger 

The Defendant’s Actions Did Not Constitute Parking
The Defendant asserts that their vehicle was momentarily stopped, not parked, for the purpose of dropping off a passenger at [insert location, e.g., “the entrance to the residential block”]. The act of stopping to allow a passenger to alight is distinct from parking, which involves leaving a vehicle for a sustained period beyond that required for immediate access, loading/unloading, or dropping off passengers.

Reliance on Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016]
The Defendant relies on the persuasive authority of Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E (Oxford County Court, appeal before His Honour Judge Charles Harris QC). In this case, the court held that stopping a vehicle for the purpose of loading or unloading (including moving furniture) does not constitute parking. Judge Harris QC stated:

“Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moments for these purposes.”

The court further clarified that the concept of parking involves “leaving a car for some duration of time” beyond immediate activities such as getting in or out, loading/unloading, or dropping off passengers. The Defendant’s momentary stop to drop off a passenger falls squarely within this principle and does not breach any parking terms.

Alignment with Industry Definitions
The distinction between stopping and parking is supported by the definition of a “parking period” in the withdrawn British Parking Association (BPA) and International Parking Community (IPC) Private Parking Code of Practice (February 2022), which states:

“Parking period: The length of time that a vehicle has been parked on relevant land, and for which any parking tariff is to be paid or is covered by a permit, permission, or other kind of authority to park.”

This definition, designed to complement the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, implies a sustained period of parking subject to a tariff or permit, not a brief stop for dropping off a passenger. The Defendant’s actions do not meet this threshold.

Primacy of Leasehold or Access Rights
The Defendant submits that their right to access the location for the purpose of dropping off a passenger is protected by [insert relevant basis, e.g., “the terms of their lease” or “a general right of access to the residential block”]. In Jopson v Homeguard, the court ruled that the claimant’s parking restrictions could not override the defendant’s leasehold rights, including the right to stop for loading/unloading. Similarly, the Claimant’s signage or terms cannot unilaterally restrict the Defendant’s lawful right to stop briefly for the purpose of dropping off a passenger.

Inapplicability of ParkingEye v Beavis
The Defendant distinguishes this case from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which concerned a commercial car park where parking charges were justified by the need to manage turnover. In contrast, this case involves a residential setting (or other relevant context, e.g., private land with access rights), where the Defendant’s actions were incidental to their lawful access rights. The Claimant’s charge is therefore an unenforceable penalty, as it does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss or a commercial justification, as required under consumer law and the principles in Jopson.

Conclusion
The Defendant’s vehicle was stopped momentarily for the legitimate purpose of dropping off a passenger, an activity that does not constitute parking under the principles established in Jopson v Homeguard. The Claimant’s parking charge notice is therefore invalid, and the claim should be dismissed. The Defendant reserves the right to seek costs for unreasonable conduct by the Claimant, as awarded in Jopson, should the court find the pursuit of this claim to be without merit.

Moo138

Okay, defence now submitted!!

Coupon-mad

Good. By removing the speech marks we presume?

Have you done the Public Consultation yet?

 I haven't submitted mine yet but it takes a couple of hours & closes on Friday. 

Moo138

Oops I left the speech marks! Will that be a problem?

Not yet but I’ll get it done this week 

Gr1pr

I suggest that you login to MCOL and check,  because the defence box on MCOL doesn't like the following 

"  <  >  

But will accept other characters like ' instead of "