UKPC -- Parking outside of bay, Valley Retail Park (Croydon)

Rhysrobin

Le_Kirk said:

Will that fit into the defence box on MCOL?

Good point! 

This version does:

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 added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery 

of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not 

monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim 

also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') 

maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason 

for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the 

right to amend the defence if details of the contract are 

provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its 

powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is 

denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest 

should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with 

the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material 

documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The 

Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of 

unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant 

has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to 

admit that they were the registered keeper. The Defendant does not 

admit to being the driver and the Claimant is put to strict proof 

of the driver’s identity and/or (if seeking keeper liability) 

strict proof of full compliance with the Protection of Freedoms 

Act 2012 Schedule 4.

3. The Defendant understands the allegation relates to parking “not 

parked correctly within the markings of the bay” at Valley Retail 

Park, Croydon on 29/05/2025. The Defendant has little recollection 

of events and does not admit to being the driver. The Defendant 

denies that the Claimant’s allegation is made out on the 

Claimant’s own evidence:

3.1. The Claimant’s photographs show the wheels on/at most 

marginally over the bay line. This is denied to amount to “not 

parked correctly within the markings of the bay” as pleaded.

3.2. Separately, the Defendant understands the vehicle may have 

been positioned as it was because a bird was present close to/in 

the bay area and appeared injured, and a reasonable driver would 

have sought to avoid causing harm and/or would have repositioned 

once safe to do so. The Defendant notes that the Claimant’s own 

photo evidence supports the presence of the bird. Wild birds are 

legally protected in the UK; under s.1 of the Wildlife and 

Countryside Act 1981 it is an offence to intentionally kill or 

injure a wild bird. Penalising reasonable avoidance of harm is 

unfair.

3.3. The Claimant’s own photo evidence includes a sign. However, 

it is denied that the terms/charge were transparently communicated 

because the sign is in small typeface and is not readily legible 

from a driver’s position. The Claimant is put to strict proof of 

prominent, readable, and adequately placed terms in force on the 

material date.

3.4. Further, the driver was a genuine retail park customer.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to 

form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable 

consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 

(s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high 

bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard 

to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of 

fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this 

Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the 

limited information given, this case looks no different. The 

Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written 

landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict 

proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of 

the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, 

schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not 

an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 

'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and 

(ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant 

obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a 

penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor 

signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from 

ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an 

£85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a 

profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding 

judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 

4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only 

parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in 

paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin 

costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 

were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated 

letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by 

operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government 

recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring 

in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting 

money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit 

being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... 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. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 

('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: 

see Explanatory Note 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))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not 

specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They 

are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) 

event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is 

no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an 

indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a 

third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that 

has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases 

is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs 

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

claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: '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))'.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 09/12/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 12/01/26

Rhysrobin

Le_Kirk said:

With an issue date of 09/12/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 12/01/26

Are you suggesting I should wait? Or submit defence now? I can't see anything in the 8 steps about waiting but am open to advice. Thanks.

Le_Kirk

No reason to wait except to see if any of the regulars want to comment on your defence..