General Form of Judgement or Order

Car1980

Don't worry. You have plenty of time and we'll help you. Judge Iyer is VERY fair and you've been given another opportunity 😉

Firstly, why do they think you weren't in a bay? Were you over the line? Was there another car parked into your bay? Perhaps you parked in some sort of restricted area, or perhaps you parked on unmarked land where it seemed like you were allowed to park?

Who is the parking company?
What is the location of the car park?

Le_Kirk

Orchid7070 said:

Thank you for your advice. I did originally provide a better defence but was told it wasn’t allowed. I will take on board your comments and update. Thank you so much

Who told you it wasn't allowed?

Coupon-mad

Le_Kirk said:

Orchid7070 said:

Thank you for your advice. I did originally provide a better defence but was told it wasn’t allowed. I will take on board your comments and update. Thank you so much

Who told you it wasn't allowed?

I assume they are talking about a pre-action appeal or dispute.

They can't have defended twice.

Orchid7070

Hi, Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to help me with this. I have prepared an Amended Defence as advised by Gr1pr using the templates on this site. Please see below, is there anything else I need to amend? How do I send this electronically please? Thank you in advance.

Amended Defence:

Claim Reference No. xxxx

PoC:

Particulars of Claim

1.   The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXX Car Park.

2.   The PCN(s) were issued on 16/08/2024

3.   The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Not Parked Correctly Within The Markings Of The Bay Or Space.

4.   In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1.   £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.

2.   Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.02 until judgment or sooner payment.

3.   Costs and court fees

Defence draft: (With personal details redacted)

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  *********

Between

UK Parking Control Ltd (Claimant)

- and - 

XXXXXXX                       

(Defendant)

Amended Defence: 

Claim Reference No. xxxx

PoC: 

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXX Car Park.

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 16/08/2024

3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Not Parked Correctly Within The Markings Of The Bay Or Space.

4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.02 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees

Defence draft: (With personal details redacted)

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  *********

Between

UK Parking Control Ltd (Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXXXX                        

(Defendant)

Original Defence (N180) (in red strike through)

I am not content for the case to be heard on the papers as it gives a disproportionate advantage to a legally represented party. I feel strongly following intimidated demands from this aggressive parking firm and their agents that I need a voice at an attended hearing. 

I wish to question the claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect or assertions. Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut and paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage. 

Defence (N9B) (in red strike through)

I am not aware of any offence committed or any ongoing proceedings. I wish to dispute the claim, please provide evidence of the alleged offence so I am able to review and respond accordingly. Thank you in anticipation of a prompt response.

Below in red except Statement of Truth

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.   I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, I do not recall if I was driving the vehicle on the date of the alleged offence. I have never received any letters, details or photographic evidence of the alleged offence of parking outside marked bays.

On receiving the initial communication from HM Courts & Tribunal Service I requested photographic evidence from the Claimant and have never received this.

I have visited the carpark subsequently and believe the signage in the carpark to be limited and not easily visible to users, signage is high up on posts and in tiny writing and at the parking meter which is frequently out of order. This makes it difficult for users to be clear on the conditions of use. The marking of the bays not clearly visible, and require repainting,

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))'.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Defendant’s signature: xxxxx

Date: xxxx

Coupon-mad

You don't copy their POC into a defence.

You type your original defence words (verbatim) then strike through them all in red.

Then you put your amended defence directly under that. Yours looks good but change 'alleged offence' (twice) to alleged breach.

Orchid7070

Thank you Coupon-Mad, I’ve removed the PoC and amended offence to breach. Please see photos of the revised Amended Defence. Is this correct? 

ChirpyChicken

You email it to the courts. I posted the email address earlier in this thread.

Gr1pr

As above,  you were given the email address back on page 1

Save the document as a docx first, for safety, then change to Save As and choose PDF in the Word list

Attach the PDF to the email and add the claim reference number to the email,  plus your name and address,  FAO Judge Iyer

I believe that you should also send one to the lawyers acting for the claimant   ( or claimant if no lawyers are involved   ),  you can use CC for this and add their email address too, so it's one email with attachment , suitably addressed,  to both parties, so if its UKPC, then I believe that DCB Legal will be where to send it, as well as Manchester civil court 

Orchid7070

Thank you so much for all the help with this. It is very much appreciated. 

doubledotcom

Bah! All you had to do was cross out the word "offence" and replace it with "contravention" and this would have gone through the usual motions of being discontinued just before the claimant had to pay the £27 trial fee.