Help Needed – Claim Form from Parking Firm VCS (LBA “No Stopping” Charge) – Drafting Defence

LittleLittle1

Hi everyone,

I've just received a Claim Form from a private parking firm (attached below — with personal details redacted), and I’d be really grateful for some advice on how to structure my defence.

Background:

The alleged contravention took place on 9th July 2024, on a roadway near Leeds Bradford Airport, where the vehicle allegedly stopped briefly (approx. 30 sec.) in a “No Stopping” zone.

The location was open to the public, with no barriers or controlled access, and the driver had no clear prior warning of any contractual terms or restrictions before the alleged stop.

The stop, if any, was very brief and occurred due to confusion about road layout or safety concerns (possibly to check directions or avoid pedestrian conflict).

A Charge Notice was issued on 17th July 2024.

I (the Defendant) am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not confirming the identity of the driver.

Over the following months, I received letters from the parking company and debt collectors, which I either appealed or challenged, but the matter was escalated to court.

Appeal reply:

"Having considered the points you have raised and reviewed our records, we are unable to accept your appeal. Our main reason(s) for this decision are as follows:

The signs at the entrance to Leeds Bradford Airport and the access roads within, clearly state "No Stopping, Picking Up or Dropping Off", giving clear notice that the land is private property and that a Charge of £100 will be levied if vehicles do stop. The above detailed vehicle stopped in a zone where stopping is prohibited and the driver became liable to pay that Charge.

In your appeal it is unclear who the driver was when your vehicle was seen to collect passengers in the drop off zone. It is important we highlight that we will continue to pursue this matter on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question until information/evidence to the contrary is provided.

A review of our CCTV evidence has confirmed that on the date in question, your vehicle stopped for an unreasonable amount of time on the access road where restrictions apply."

The Claim Form was issued nearly a year later, on 8th July 2025, seeking a sum that includes the original charge, interest, and a £70 "debt recovery" fee.

Questions:

On what main legal points should I base my defence?

No contract? No driver details? Public highway?

Has anyone successfully defended similar “No Stopping at Airport” claims?

Is there a good draft defence template for this kind of case?

Defence draft:

DEFENCE

1.
The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

1.1.
The Claimant alleges that the Defendant’s vehicle was observed stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited. As a result, the Defendant — as the registered keeper — received a Charge Notice (CN), a Notice to Keeper (NTK), and ultimately this County Court Claim Form seeking to recover a sum of money purportedly arising from a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

2.
It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle but has not been identified as the driver.

3.
The alleged contravention occurred at Leeds Bradford Airport, which is governed by airport byelaws. As such, it is not considered 'relevant land' under the Protection Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4), and no keeper liability can be established.

3.1.
The Defendant notes that the CN was issued not for any alleged failure to pay for parking — which was in fact duly paid — but for an alleged brief "stopping" of the vehicle. This is a key distinction, as the vehicle was not stationary in a manner that constitutes 'parking' or even deliberate 'stopping' in the legal sense. According to the appeal judgment in Jopson v Homeguard [2016], “parking” implies leaving a vehicle for a longer duration beyond that needed for ingress, egress, loading, or short vicissitudes. The event in question involved, at most, a momentary hesitation of less than 30 seconds.

3.2.
The Defendant further notes that the document issued was a "Charge Notice" (CN), not a "Parking Charge Notice" (PCN). This discrepancy undermines the legal clarity and throws doubt on whether the Claimant is pursuing this under parking rules or inventing a distinct breach based on undefined "stopping".

3.3.
No Conclusive Evidence of ‘Stopping’
The photographic evidence provided by the Claimant does not conclusively demonstrate that the Defendant’s vehicle was in fact stopped as alleged. The images show only the front of the vehicle, without any indication as to whether the vehicle was stationary, braking, or in motion at the time.
In the absence of video footage or clear contextual evidence (e.g. brake lights illuminated, vehicle stationary across multiple frames, or timestamp sequence), the Claimant cannot prove on the balance of probabilities that the vehicle stopped in contravention of the signage.
It is entirely possible that the vehicle was moving slowly. Such an action do not amount to a contractual breach. The burden of proof lies with the Claimant, and the ambiguous images fail to meet that threshold.

3.4.
The Defendant further asserts that the distinction between “parking” and “stopping” — and even more so, mere slowing — is material. The site signage and legal basis for pursuing a charge for such transient conduct are inadequate and fail to form a valid and enforceable contract. The claim is based on vague, inconsistent, and inaccurate grounds, and must be dismissed as lacking merit.

Crucially, the Claimant has also failed to define what is meant by the term “stopping,” which is central to their allegation. Is it alleged that the vehicle came to a complete halt? Or that it merely slowed down briefly? Or does the Claimant contend that any deceleration whatsoever constitutes “stopping”? The absence of a clear, objective definition renders the alleged contractual terms vague, ambiguous, and unenforceable. This lack of clarity breaches the transparency requirements under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. A driver cannot be expected to accept or be bound by terms whose meaning is uncertain or undefined. As such, the claim fails to establish the basic elements necessary to form a valid and binding contract.

3.5.
The event occurred on a damp, overcast morning. At approximately 08:20, the vehicle’s dipped headlights were illuminated — consistent with local visibility conditions. This further supports that the vehicle was in active motion along the roadway, rather than parked or intentionally stopped.

3.6.
The evidence presented by the Claimant — a sequence of three still images taken over a span of 30 seconds (from 08:20:12 to 08:20:49) — does not support the conclusion that the vehicle was "stopped" in the ordinary or legal sense. On the contrary, the images show that the vehicle was in motion throughout: it gradually traverses a white line marking a pedestrian crossing, which becomes increasingly obscured in each image. This clearly indicates forward movement and undermines the assertion that the vehicle came to a stop.
The Defendant asserts that the vehicle was never stationary during the alleged timeframe. Any brief deceleration or hesitation, if it occurred at all, was minimal, non-deliberate, and entirely justified — likely for safe navigation, pedestrian awareness, or due to general traffic conditions.
At no point were the vehicle’s doors opened, nor did any person enter or exit the vehicle. There was no interaction with the surrounding environment that would suggest an intention to stop. Moreover, the photographic evidence shows no other vehicles in proximity, further confirming that there was no obstruction, delay, or disruption to traffic flow.
Such behaviour does not amount to a breach of contract and cannot give rise to a legitimate charge. Even on designated "red routes", where stopping is strictly prohibited to maintain traffic flow, there is no legal restriction against slow or cautious driving when safety demands it.
The Claimant has failed to demonstrate that the vehicle was stopped. The images merely show the vehicle progressing — over several seconds — across a ‘marked’ pedestrian crossing, with the white road markings gradually becoming obscured. This is wholly consistent with safe, lawful, and attentive driving. In such a context, slowing down is not only permitted but expected in the interests of public safety.
...
I hope this information is enough to start a thread.

Car1980

I think you need to be a bit more definitive. Forget hesitation etc. You can cut quite a lot of it out and save for the witness statement.

You slowed for a pedestrian crossing and at no point did you stop. 

Even if you HAD stopped, it was a marked pedestrian crossing and were morally and legally obliged to stop and the doctrine of impossibility applies. Avoiding breaching of the Claimant's contract would involve killing somebody in the most extreme case. But probably save that for the Witness Statement.


You could actually go for a very short defence and file on MCOL if you wanted. Save everything else for the witness statement.

1. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant’s vehicle was observed stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited.

2. This is completely denied and simply did not happen. The Claimant supplies only a photograph of the vehicle, obviously static by nature, but it was driving slowly on the approach to a pedestrian crossing and at no point did the driver ever come to a stop. 

3. It is submitted the claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4:

a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

DE_612183

How can you agree to a contract of "no stopping?" - by default you'd have to stop to read the signs saying "no stopping" - I'm sure there is a phrase for this Estopple perhaps?

Coupon-mad

NB:

I have changed the Template Defence and advice. Do not email it. 

LittleLittle1

Car1980 said:

I think you need to be a bit more definitive. Forget hesitation etc. You can cut quite a lot of it out and save for the witness statement.

You slowed for a pedestrian crossing and at no point did you stop. 

You could actually go for a very short defence and file on MCOL if you wanted. 

Thanks so much for all the advice and suggestions so far – they’ve been really helpful!

Based on your input, I’ve prepared a short and clear draft Defence that I plan to submit via MCOL. I wanted to share it here to check if this is roughly what you had in mind, and whether you think this response is sufficient or if I should expand or add anything.

Draft Defence:

1. The Claimant alleges the Defendant’s vehicle stopped in a “no stopping” zone.

2. This is denied. The vehicle was moving slowly approaching a pedestrian crossing, but at no point did it stop.

3. Even if the vehicle had momentarily stopped, it was legally and morally required to do so for pedestrian safety. The doctrine of impossibility applies: compliance with the Claimant’s “no stopping” term would have risked harm.

4. The signage containing the terms was positioned directly opposite the vehicle. Any slowing or momentary pause was reasonably necessary to read and understand the terms.

5. It is impossible to form a valid contract that requires stopping to read “no stopping” signs. Such a term is unfair and unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Schedule 2, para 10).

6. The road is public and open, so only authorised traffic officers may enforce stopping restrictions. The Claimant’s private contract claim lacks legal basis.

7. The claim discloses no reasonable grounds and should be struck out under CPR 3.4.

I’d appreciate any feedback or suggestions on this.

Coupon-mad

Compare it to my new one and amalgamate.

  

LittleLittle1

Coupon-mad said:

Compare it to my new one and amalgamate.

  

Thank you so much to everyone who offered advice and helped me understand the process. Based on your suggestions, I’ve drafted the following Defence. I've done my best to follow the guidance from the updated Template Defence and to include the relevant facts of my case, without identifying the driver.

I'm also sharing it here in case it helps someone else in a similar situation.

Would you mind taking a quick look and letting me know:

• Does this look sufficient and appropriate?

• Am I missing anything important?

• Do I need to clarify or expand on any parts?

Here’s the full text of my current draft Defence:

DEFENCE

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 Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the allegation or the heads of cost. The Defendant denies liability for the inflated sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract, there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the limited information available, this case appears to be no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs and the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided. However, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

3. Save as set out below, the Defendant has little or no knowledge or recollection of events on the date stated. The vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

3.1 The Claimant alleges the Defendant’s vehicle was seen to have stopped in a 'no stopping' zone. This is denied. The photograph supplied only captures a single moment in time and does not prove that the vehicle was stopped, nor that any person was picked up or dropped off. The vehicle was proceeding slowly in the vicinity of a pedestrian crossing and may have slowed or paused briefly as required by law and moral obligation. If any stopping occurred, it was in the context of a marked pedestrian crossing — where stopping is necessary to avoid endangering life — and is covered by the legal doctrine of impossibility. Further, if the vehicle did pause, it would have been in order to read a sign displaying purported contractual terms, which was located directly opposite the vehicle, as evidenced by Google Street View imagery. It is submitted that the act of reading a contractual notice cannot simultaneously be construed as an acceptance of the same contract if doing so requires stopping, which the contract itself prohibits. Such an arrangement is self-defeating and unenforceable. The signage was inadequate to form a contract, and no contract can arise where the terms are unreadable without performing the very act the contract prohibits. The principle of estoppel applies: the Claimant cannot insist on a driver accepting terms while simultaneously prohibiting the means of doing so. The Defendant further submits that no breach occurred and that the alleged contractual term is unfair, non-prominent, and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Claimant is put to strict proof that adequate notice of the alleged charge was given prior to any alleged breach. Furthermore, the road in question is open and appears indistinguishable from a public highway, with no barriers, gates, or clear demarcation indicating private land. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the Claimant cannot reasonably expect a driver to be contractually bound by private terms that are not clearly signposted in advance. The general appearance and lack of boundary signage creates ambiguity as to jurisdiction, and the doctrine of contra proferentem should apply against the drafter of such unclear terms.

4. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written agreement from the landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to sue under a landowner contract and the terms/scope and dates/details of the parking management service, including the contract itself, all updates and schedules and a map of the site boundary as set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps mock-up).

5. In order to impose a parking charge, as well as proving that the driver breached an obligation, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any relevant obligation(s) and of the charge itself. None of these requirements have been demonstrated and this charge is a penalty. ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 is fully distinguished. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis and also to ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) a finding unaffected by Beavis. In Somerfield, HHJ Hegarty (whose decision was ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' further inflating a £75 (discounted to £37.50) parking charge to £135 was disproportionate to the minor cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

6. On 11th July 2025 a Public Consultation by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘MHCLG’) began. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 will finally curb the unjust enrichment of the parking industry and debt recovery agents (DRAs). Banning DRA fees (mirroring the approach of the last Government, which called DRA fees ‘extorting money from motorists’) appears likely. The MHCLG have identified that the added sums are not part of the parking related charges: “profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than the profits reported 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”.

7. The claim exceeds the current Code of Practice £100 maximum parking charge without justification or explanation. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') it also exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recoverable; the explanatory notes to s4 (5) and (6) state at para 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)).’’

8. The Claimant is put to proof of POFA and Code of Practice compliance. It is denied that any DRA sums are due, nor interest (the delay lies with the Claimant and interest should be disallowed).

9. The delay in litigation has made retrieving material documents/evidence impossible for the Defendant, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks standard witness costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant, opening up further costs (CPR 46.5).

10. The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst a Claimant is liable for a Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply 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))."


Thanks again — your time and support really make a difference

DE_612183

surely 3 "the Defendant has little or no knowledge or recollection of events on the date stated" contradicts 3.1 "The vehicle was proceeding slowly in the vicinity of a pedestrian crossing and may have slowed or paused briefly as required by law and moral obligation" - could just be me being pedantic?

LittleLittle1

DE_612183 said:

surely 3 "the Defendant has little or no knowledge or recollection of events on the date stated" contradicts 3.1 "The vehicle was proceeding slowly in the vicinity of a pedestrian crossing and may have slowed or paused briefly as required by law and moral obligation" - could just be me being pedantic?

Thanks for the comment – you're absolutely right that, at first glance, it looked like there might be a contradiction. I appreciate you pointing it out.

What I was trying to do was distinguish between my lack of personal knowledge or recollection about the driver or the circumstances, and what can be inferred from the Claimant's evidence (i.e. the photos provided with CN).

I've now simplified and merged both points into a single paragraph to make it clearer and more consistent. I also slightly changed the last sentences. Here's the revised version:

3. The Defendant has little or no recollection of events on the date stated and does not intend to disclose the identity of the driver. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

The Claimant alleges that the Defendant’s vehicle was seen to have stopped in a 'no stopping' zone. This is denied. The three photographs provided by the Claimant with Charge Notice show the vehicle in slightly different positions over a span of approximately 30 seconds, indicating minimal but continued movement. These images do not prove that the vehicle was stationary, nor that any person was picked up or dropped off - the vehicle was proceeding slowly in the vicinity of a pedestrian crossing and may have slowed or paused briefly as required by law and moral obligation. If any stopping occurred, it was in the context of a marked pedestrian crossing — where stopping is necessary to avoid endangering life — and is covered by the legal doctrine of impossibility. Further, if the vehicle did pause, it would have been in order to read a sign displaying purported contractual terms, which was located directly opposite the vehicle, as evidenced by Google Street View imagery. It is submitted that the act of reading a contractual notice cannot simultaneously be construed as an acceptance of the same contract if doing so requires stopping, which the contract itself prohibits. Such an arrangement is self-defeating and unenforceable. The signage was inadequate to form a contract, and no contract can arise where the terms are unreadable without performing the very act the contract prohibits. The principle of estoppel applies: the Claimant cannot insist on a driver accepting terms while simultaneously prohibiting the means of doing so. The Defendant further submits that no breach occurred and that the alleged contractual term is unfair, non-prominent, and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Claimant is put to strict proof that adequate notice of the alleged charge was given prior to any alleged breach. Furthermore, although the signage refers to ‘Private Property’, the area is open and appears indistinguishable from a public highway, with no barriers, gates, or clear demarcation indicating the start of a privately managed zone. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the Claimant cannot reasonably expect a driver to be contractually bound by private terms that are not clearly and prominently signposted in advance. The general appearance and lack of boundary signage creates ambiguity as to jurisdiction, and the doctrine of contra proferentem should apply against the drafter of such unclear terms.

Gr1pr

Personally,  I would remove the part about anyone being dropped off or picked up,  especially because the POC nor the NTK PCN letter, do not mention it,  so why would you  ?

Rebut the POC,  don't speculate on any circumstances etc, like VCS did in the appeal reply with their allegations 

Also,  if you were NOT the driver,  say so , because airport land is controlled using bylaws and there is no keeper liability,  it's not a public road either,  it's a roadway that the public has access to,  on airport land 

LittleLittle1

Coupon-mad said:

Compare it to my new one and amalgamate.

  

Just a quick note regarding the defence template — excellent work overall and extremely helpful.

One small suggestion:
In paragraph 6, it refers to “the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)”, but this department was renamed in 2021 and is now called the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC).

It might be worth updating the reference to avoid any confusion in court. Something like:

“...a public consultation was launched by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (‘DLUHC’, formerly MHCLG)...”

Hope that helps!