Iceland - para 3

qwertyoffice

Hi all,

It has been a while!

Got court claim through with these particulars...

The driver of the vehicle with registration B2???? (the 'Vehicle') parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract') at ICELAND CHELMSFORD, on 15/12/2023, thus incurring the parking charge (the 'PCN'). The PCN was not paid within 28 days of issue. The Claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the Defendant as the driver/keeper of the Vehicle. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.
THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
£90 for the PCN, £70.00 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £18.85 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.04 per day.


I cannot remember what happened here, but is this ChatGBT para 3 special ok please?


3. On the date in question, the Defendant recalls parking at the location in order to shop at Iceland. The Defendant did not see any clear signage at the entrance or at the location where the vehicle was parked that communicated any terms regarding a parking charge, let alone a £90 penalty or the purported £70 contractual costs now being claimed. The area appeared to permit customer parking and no notice was given at the time that a contravention had occurred. The Defendant did not knowingly agree to any contractual terms and disputes that a fair or enforceable contract was formed.

Gr1pr

What is the issue date from the top right of the claim form   ?

What date did you do the AOS   ?

Name the parking company claimant plus any lawyers involved 

Those Particulars don't specify the breach, so if its not mentioned you should probably include Chan and Akande into your defence 

The parking company dont issue penalties,  so change that word to charge 

qwertyoffice

Issue Date is 7th of July - I have filed the AOS today.

The claimant is Horizon Parking Ltd, and the legal representative is Gladstones.  Thank you

Le_Kirk

As @Gr1pr writes, find the new template defence thread and use it citing Chan & Akande.  We don't like ChatGPT!

Coupon-mad

Bin Chat GPT and just search the forum for:

Chan Akande defence true

qwertyoffice

Thanks all, so if I have understood it all correctly I should file my defence on MCOL (not longer email them it) as follows....

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authorities:

3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage:

Link to the two authorities:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/v2lrfnk408u2qavuokcej/Chan_Akande.pdf?rlkey=o92ljo06yf0ehhyg1j9ayxla2&e=1&st=um09mews&dl=0

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  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. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

6. On the date in question, the Defendant recalls parking at the location in order to shop at Iceland. The Defendant did not see any clear signage at the entrance or at the location where the vehicle was parked that communicated any terms regarding a parking charge, let alone a £90 charge or the purported £70 contractual costs now being claimed. The area appeared to permit customer parking and no notice was given at the time that a contravention had occurred. The Defendant did not knowingly agree to any contractual terms and disputes that a fair or enforceable contract was formed.

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))'.

Le_Kirk

I doubt that will fit in the MCOL box; are you looking at the new Template Defence?
31 July 2023 at 5:58AM edited 16 July at 8:27AM <<<<LINK

Coupon-mad

Nope because that's not the new template defence. I can tell from paragraph 1.

qwertyoffice

Is this ok please?

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.

3.Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage:

Link to the two authorities:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/v2lrfnk408u2qavuokcej/Chan_Akande.pdf?rlkey=o92ljo06yf0ehhyg1j9ayxla2&e=1&st=um09mews&dl=0

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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'.

9. 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'.

10. 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.

11. 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))'.

Coupon-mad

You've omitted your facts about being the driver and being a customer of Iceland.