Total Confused Newbie

calmur84

Hi. I have received this letter from HM Courts stating I have a claim against me. I’m totally confused by the appeal system and have tried to figure out what to do before coming on here. But don’t know where to start. 

I work as a support worker for looked after young people. Park of my work is buying new clothing for young people when they 1st come into our services. A year or so I had a similar fine for overstaying on a car park due to the young people being indecisive when buying items. I now have to pay £10 a month for 27 months for that fine. I can’t afford to pay another. I’m on a low income and work part time. 

This latest fine is overstaying on a charity shop car park in the same circumstances. I went over the time, and was over the extra 10 minute threshold. I think it may have been 30 mins over. 

[Image removed by Forum Team]

James_Poisson

Oh dear you should have come here first no one on here pays these silly charges and certainly not the over inflated £185 which includes unwarranted debt collection fees.

These are speculative invoices issued under an implied business contract not "fines".

Have you found the newbies thread yet, all the advice is in  there.

Castle

There's a VRM and location still showing on the POC.

Coupon-mad

 I now have to pay £10 a month for 27 months for that fine.

You don't have any fines and never had to pay. £270 sounds like you already got a CCJ by ignoring a claim form(?) so this time, read the second post of the NEWBIES thread!

Acknowledge the Claim to buy more time then it's very easy to defend using the template defence ... but you may want to wait as I will be shortening it this week and changing the advice to tell people to put the defence in in MCOL not by email. 

Redacted Claim Form here:

calmur84

Thank you. So I go to moneyclaim.gov.uk for now and respond to them with “the acknowledgement of service”. This will then give me 30 days (+5 days) from the issue date of 24/06/25 to “prepare my defence”. Which I can copy from your template? I can wait for the shortened version I presume? Coupon-mad said:

 I now have to pay £10 a month for 27 months for that fine.

You don't have any fines and never had to pay. £270 sounds like you already got a CCJ by ignoring a claim form(?) so this time, read the second post of the NEWBIES thread!

Acknowledge the Claim to buy more time then it's very easy to defend using the template defence ... but you may want to wait as I will be shortening it this week and changing the advice to tell people to put the defence in in MCOL not by email. 

Redacted Claim Form here:

Coupon-mad

Yep.          

Umkomaas

This will then give me 30 days (+5 days) from the issue date of 24/06/25 to “prepare my defence”

You only get 33 days from the Date of Issue - 5 days for service, plus 28 days. 

calmur84

Hi Guys. About to submit my defence on MCOL. Is this ok? Is there any need for me to add what I have in section 3? I have found this whole process so confusing. Sorry if I've missed anything or have gotten it completely wrong. 

1.I am xxxx , and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

2.In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows

3. The claim was made against myself for parking on a Eurocar Car Park. I currently work as a support worker for unaccompanied asylum seeking children. I have revisited the car park in question and cannot see clear signage displaying overstaying rules on said carpark. Also, the car in question is used by multiple people. Is there any evidence that I was the driver on the said day of the alleged visit? I am a neurodivergent dyslexic and am currently on a NHS wait list for ADHD assessment and confusing legal jargon like the letters you have sent me exasperate my condition. I feel that the way this whole system is set up is unfair to people like myself who cannot afford any legal aid. Receiving letter from a court for a money claim against me has led me to a burnout where my executive function has been hindered and my daily life has been massively impacted. I have found this whole situation stressful and exhausting for myself. 

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 09/05/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).  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. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

7. 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.

8. 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).

9. 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.

10. 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'.

11. 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'.

12. 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.

13. 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))'.

calmur84

@Coupon-mad sorry for the direct tag, but I need to submit this before my ADHD brain puts it to the back of my mind forgotten about until another letter comes through the post. 

calmur84

As I have been trying to sort this I have had two more letters through the post one for Empira, and one for Gladstone solicitors both for overstay on Tesco via Horizon. Honestly, I feel like giving up. I had both the family cars in my name and I wasn't even the driver at the time for these charges. Do I need to use the same template as about to dispute these charges?

Umkomaas

calmur84 said:

As I have been trying to sort this I have had two more letters through the post one for Empira, and one for Gladstone solicitors both for overstay on Tesco via Horizon. Honestly, I feel like giving up. I had both the family cars in my name and I wasn't even the driver at the time for these charges. Do I need to use the same template as about to dispute these charges?

If this is a completely different charge to the current case in this thread, please start a new thread about it before messages and advice become confused. Thanks.