Advice please re. defending a claim against parking in a disabled space at the gym

Poetry_in_motion

1.  The Claimant’s sparse particulars lack specificity and fail to comply with CPR 16.4, Practice Direction 16 paragraphs 3 and 7, as they do not state all facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action. The added costs and/or damages appear to be a transparent attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and do not represent genuine losses incurred by the Claimant. Moreover, the total claim exceeds the £100 maximum charge set out in the relevant Code of Practice (CoP). The exaggerated nature of this claim provides good reason for the Court to strike it out under CPR 3.4. While the Defendant reserves the right to amend this defence upon receipt of further particulars or contractual documents, the Court is invited to exercise its case management powers to strike out the claim in its current form.

2. The allegations and heads of cost are vague. Liability is denied in full for the amount claimed, or at all. Interest, if claimed, should also be disallowed, given the significant delay in bringing proceedings, delay that lies solely with the Claimant. This delay has also prejudiced the Defendant’s ability to retrieve material documents and evidence. The Defendant seeks fixed costs under CPR 27.14 and a finding of unreasonable conduct pursuant to CPR 46.5.
   
   

3. The Claimant alleges the Defendant remained on private land in breach of prominently displayed terms and conditions. The Defendant denies that any such contract was formed, asserting that the signage was unclear, inadequate, and misleading, and therefore incapable of creating contractual liability.
   
   

4. The signage was recently altered following the engagement of a private parking operator. A new requirement, obligating disabled drivers to register at reception, was introduced without proper notification. This term was not present during the Defendant’s three-year membership at the gym, and the change was not sufficiently brought to their attention. The signage lacked the prominence, clarity and consistency required to establish enforceable contractual terms.
   
   

5. On the dates in question, the vehicle displayed a valid Blue Badge. Due to the time elapsed and the regular sharing of the vehicle, the Defendant cannot confirm whether they or their passenger (also insured under the same policy) was the driver. The passenger is disabled and entitled to use the badge. Issuing a charge in these circumstances is unfair and potentially discriminatory, breaching the Equality Act 2010, which protects disabled persons from being disadvantaged by failure to make reasonable adjustments.
   
   

6. Two charges were issued just 24 hours apart, which further demonstrates that the signage failed to adequately convey the alleged obligations. A clear and effective warning would reasonably have prevented a second charge.
   
   

7. The Defendant relies on CEL v Chan, where the court held that unclear or inadequately positioned signage cannot give rise to a binding agreement. Similarly, in CPMS v Akande, the court dismissed a claim against a disabled motorist where the operator had failed to make reasonable adjustments and to properly communicate rule changes.
   
   

8. The amount claimed is excessive and punitive, and does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. In ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court upheld an £85 charge only on the basis of clear signage, legitimate commercial interest, and proportionality—all of which are absent in this case. Other judgments, including Excel Parking Services Ltd v Hetherington-Jakeman and UKPC v Masterson, support the principle that ambiguous signage or excessive charges are unenforceable.
   
   

9. A valid contract requires offer, acceptance, and consideration, none of which is established here. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, particularly sections 62 and 71, the Court is required to assess the fairness and prominence of consumer notices. Schedule 2 (examples 6, 10, 14, and 18) illustrates unfair terms, all of which appear relevant to the Claimant's conduct. The Defendant requests strict proof, including contemporaneous photographs of the signage relied upon.
   
   

10. The imposition of a parking charge requires (i) a strong legitimate interest that extends beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) adequate notice of the charge and any alleged obligations. Neither has been demonstrated. This charge arises from poor signage and what amounts to a concealed trap, making it clearly distinguishable from ParkingEye v Beavis.
    
    

11. The Defendant draws attention to:
    
    

• Paragraphs 98, 100, 193, and 198 of Beavis, where the £85 charge was found to cover all letter-chain costs and still generate a profit for the landowner.
  
  

• ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB) (ratified by the Court of Appeal), the only parking case law directly addressing costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty found (paras 419–428) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC to £135 were disproportionate and penal in nature.
  
  

1. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 aims to address abusive practices by private parking operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). A July 2025 Government consultation noted: “profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than that made by parking operators” and suggested that “the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market,” evidencing market failure. A ban on DRA fees is expected, reflecting widespread concerns about ‘extorting money from motorists’.
   
   

2. Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), the Claimant cannot claim more than the parking charge as it stood at the time of the notice to the driver. 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.” Additional fees (unknown to drivers and not stated on signs) are unenforceable and are inventions of 'no win, no fee' DRAs. Even if POFA and CoP compliance were shown (which is denied), DRA fees are not recoverable under statute.
   
   

3. This claim is a disproportionate use of court resources and symptomatic of systemic abuse. Parking claims now constitute a significant portion of small claims. Most defended cases end in late discontinuance, triggering the Claimant’s liability for costs under CPR 38.6(1). While CPR 38.6(3) exempts small claims, the White Book notes that costs may be awarded where a party has acted unreasonably under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
   
   

4. In light of the above, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Poetry_in_motion

Is this okay or too wordy? 

Poetry_in_motion

Also, I've noticed the the numbers have gone awry as I've pasted it here, obviously I will correct that before I submit it

Gr1pr

Poetry_in_motion said:

The issue date was 30/06 and the AOS was 14/7, I think I have until next Monday to file my defence so it's my priority for this week.

Your deadline is Monday 4th August at 4pm

Ralph-y

Please do the above ....

and why are you still at this gym  ? 

Poetry_in_motion

Ralph-y said:

Please do the above ....

and why are you still at this gym  ? 

Until they sold out to Parking Eye they were quite good 😬

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

OK, so you need to use Chan and Akande in para 3 of your defence (search the forum for wording) as well as stating that you are disabled and did not breach a term, and the supposed new obligation to 'register' the Blue Badge as well as display it, is clearly an unfair, unexpected and onerous burden which breaches both the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Equality Act 2010.

To fit all that in using MCOL (we now advise defendants do use it), you may have to remove the final paragraph of the short Template Defence. That's fine.

As above, concentrate on what I suggested above. Your version is too long and has muddled things up a bit. Not needed. Don't reinvent the wheel. Use the template as is.

Don't throw in old stuff like Hetherington-Jakeman and Masterson from two hundred* years ago!

*I might be exaggerating...