Claim Form (BW Legal) - Help with Draft Defense

RjO90

Hi all,

I received a PCN from 'Premier Park' on 04/08/2023 and appealed, which was rejected by them (with a reduced offer due to 'keying error' which I missed as it was in my junk). Since then, I have been ignoring debt recovery letters but received a 'claim form' through the post with an issue date of 29/05/2025. I have raised the AOS on 12/06/2025.

Using your extremely helpful template and other information, I have drafted a defense and I am looking for any comments or feedback.

Please see the below (apologies, I am unable to attach word file). As reguarly requested, I will only include sections / paragraphs that are not part of the standard template. Thanks in advance for your help:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[PARAGRAPH 1 IS AS PER STANDARD TEMPLATE]

Summary of Defence Grounds

2.       The Defendant relies on the following key grounds of defence:

• The Defendant was the registered keeper but not the driver; the Claimant has failed to establish liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).
• The Particulars of Claim are vague and non-compliant with CPR 16.4 and Practice Directions 3 and 7; the Defendant invites strike out under CPR 3.4.
• No breach occurred: the driver paid for parking and exited within the BPA-mandated grace period.
• The alleged breach related to a keying error, which the Claimant acknowledged under BPA Clause 17.4; pursuing full charges is disproportionate.
• The Claimant's signage and terms breached the Consumer Rights Act 2015, failing the fairness and prominence tests.
• The claim includes unlawful and inflated costs; it is a textbook example of exaggerated litigation addressed by the DLUHC Code and pending regulation.
• The Claimant has not proven standing or landowner authority to pursue this claim in their own name.
• A genuine and independent ADR process was not made available, contrary to the spirit of consumer dispute resolution.

 

 

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 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. The Defendant admits to being the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver at the time of the alleged event. The identity of the driver is not admitted and has not been evidenced by the Claimant.

 

4.       Accordingly, the Defendant invites the Court to consider striking out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a), on the basis that the Particulars of Claim disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim. In the alternative, the Defendant requests that the Claimant be ordered to file and serve Further and Better Particulars of Claim, pursuant to CPR 16.4(1) and Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.3, to allow the Defendant to properly understand and respond to the case being advanced

 

5.       The vehicle was parked for approximately 2 hours and 10 minutes. The driver (identity not admitted) paid £1 in cash for 2 hours' parking. The BPA Code of Practice (Clause 13.4) requires that a minimum 10-minute grace period is applied after a paid session ends. The departure time fell within this grace period, so no breach occurred.

 

Failure to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA):

6.       The Claimant seeks to hold the Defendant liable as the registered keeper. However, the Notice to Keeper (“NTK”) fails to comply with several requirements under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), notably:

o   Failing to invite the keeper to name the driver under Paragraph 9(2)(e);

 

o   Misstating the 28-day statutory period in Paragraph 9(2)(f);

 

o   Failing to specify the actual date of posting, in breach of Paragraph 9(2)(i).

As such, the Claimant cannot lawfully pursue keeper liability under POFA.

 

Keying Errors in the context of the (DLUHC) Private Parking Code of Practice:

7.       The Defendant engaged fully with the Claimant’s internal appeals process and subsequently with the independent appeals service, POPLA. As part of the Claimant’s response, a reduced charge of £20 was offered. While this offer was stated to be made “without prejudice save as to costs” and the Defendant makes no admission in reliance upon the amount proposed, it is relevant to note the Claimant’s explicit reference to section 17.4 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, which concerns keying errors.

 

Clause 17.4 of the BPA Code requires that operators exercise discretion and either cancel or substantially reduce Parking Charge Notices where minor registration input errors occur. The Claimant’s own correspondence confirmed that their offer was made to comply with this clause, thereby acknowledging that the alleged breach falls within the category of errors for which the industry’s Code mandates leniency.

 

The Defendant submits that although the offer itself is not relied upon as an admission of liability, the reference to BPA 17.4 confirms that the Claimant was aware the circumstances related to a trivial or de minimis keying error and not a deliberate avoidance of payment. It is therefore unreasonable and disproportionate for the Claimant to now pursue the full Parking Charge through court proceedings, having previously acknowledged the reduced culpability of the event.

 

8.       The Defendant also refers to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) Private Parking Code of Practice, published in February 2022 and expected to be adopted in due course as the new statutory framework. Although currently paused pending consultation, the Code represents the government’s intended legal and regulatory direction for private parking enforcement.

 

The Code makes clear that the responsibility for preventing and detecting minor keying errors — such as incorrect vehicle registration entries — lies with the operator, not the motorist. It explicitly provides that where such errors occur, Parking Charge Notices should either be cancelled or capped at a nominal amount, and not pursued through aggressive enforcement.

 

The Defendant submits that pursuing full charges for de minimis errors, or for alleged overstays of a few minutes, is inconsistent with this evolving regulatory framework and supports the argument that the Claimant's practices are unreasonable, excessive, and contrary to public policy. This provides further weight to the Defendant’s position that no enforceable or fair contract exists.

[PARAGRAPH 9 ONWARDS IS AS PER STANDARD TEMPLATE]

RjO90

Apologies for the edits already! But for context my wife was driving and bought and displayed a physical parking ticket which was later thrown away. The ticket machine did not print a receipt, and it was bought with cash so there is no electronic record of the purchased ticket.

RjO90

Also, I have already amended paragraphs 5 & 6 to provide more detail. Please see drafts below:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.       The vehicle was parked for approximately 2 hours and 10 minutes. On reviewing the photographic evidence provided by the Claimant, the vehicle was first recorded entering the car park at 11:26:44 and exiting at 13:36:57, resulting in a total duration on site of 2 hours and 10 minutes. The driver (whose identity is not admitted) paid £1 in cash for 2 hours of parking, in accordance with the displayed tariff.

Under the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, Clause 13.4 clearly states that:

“If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, then the Grace Period at the end of the parking event must be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

Furthermore, Clause 13.3 reinforces the principle that parking operators “must allow the driver a reasonable Grace Period in which to leave the car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.”

It follows that the vehicle’s departure fell entirely within the grace period mandated by the BPA, and no breach of contract or contravention occurred. The Parking Charge Notice was therefore issued in clear violation of the BPA Code, rendering it invalid.

 

Failure to Establish Keeper Liability Under POFA 2012:

6.       The Claimant seeks to hold the Defendant liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle. However, this is not permissible in law, as the requirements for establishing 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) have not been met.

Under POFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4, a registered keeper can only be held liable for a parking charge incurred by a driver if specific statutory conditions are satisfied. These include:

           i.            That the Claimant does not know the name of the driver and their current address,

         ii.            That the Claimant has delivered a Notice to Keeper (NTK) in accordance with paragraph 9, and

        iii.            That the Claimant has complied with all the applicable notice requirements within that paragraph, including delivery within 14 days from the date of the alleged parking event.

 

Upon inspection, the NTK issued in this matter fails to comply with several key provisions of Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4:

* Paragraph 9(2)(e): The notice must invite the keeper to either pay the charge or provide the name and address of the driver. Instead, the NTK merely states: “we now request this amount is paid,” which is a demand, not an invitation. This miswording fails to comply with the strict wording required by POFA.

* Paragraph 9(2)(f): The notice must warn the keeper that the creditor has the right to recover the charge from them after “the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given.” However, the NTK states payment is due “within 29 days,” which fails to take into account the presumed delivery window and therefore misrepresents the statutory period. This discrepancy is material and renders the notice defective.

* Paragraph 9(2)(i): The NTK must “specify the date on which the notice is sent (or handed) to the keeper.” The notice merely provides an “issue date,” which does not equate to a confirmed posting date, and therefore does not fulfil the statutory requirement to clearly identify the date of service.

As a result of these multiple failings, the NTK does not comply with POFA Schedule 4, and the Claimant cannot lawfully pursue the Defendant as keeper. The burden remains with the Claimant to prove the driver’s identity, which is not admitted by the Defendant and has not been established

Le_Kirk

In my opinion the defence is way too long and should have less detail not more, keep the detail and the story narrative) for the witness statement and evidence stage.  Why are you not just using the standard defence template and adjusting paragraphs 2 & 3?